• 0 Posts
  • 20 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: November 6th, 2023

help-circle











  • By that I meant any political activity really. This isn’t a defense of electoralism.

    Machines are replacing humans in the economy, and that has material consequences.

    Holding onto ideas of human exceptionalism is going to mean being unprepared.

    A lot of people see minor obstacles for machines, and conclude they can’t replace humans, and return to distracting themselves with other things while their livelihood is being threatened.

    Robotaxis are already operating, and a product to replace most customer service jobs has just been released for businesses to order about 1 months ago.

    Many in this thread are navel gazing about how that bot won’t really experience anything when they get created, as if that mattered to any of this.





  • throughout what? I’ve replied to you exactly once.

    First I addressed the behavior of the poster you defended.

    Second: Why do you think I emphasized the you in the last comment? Where I’m from it would imply your a different person I’m addressing now.

    With that sorted out: Anyone could, but no one can, because there’s no reason for faith, so there’s nothing to share. This community takes an idealist take, not a materialist one.

    I understand what you’re saying. Civility doesn’t matter because your ideals are solid, but you wouldn’t waste the time on defending them. You would waste an equal amount of time writing out immature comments avoiding the point in question though. But that doesn’t count, because your being ironic- whereas the coherent comment does count because that’s got to take a lot of effort.

    It’s a good excuse for idealists, because they don’t look good when they take it seriously. Materialists tend to humor people with civility because they do convince anyone watching.




  • If you start with the assumption that humans have a soul, and reject the notion that machines are the same for that reason then yea what is there to discuss?

    I can’t disprove your faith. That’s what faith is.

    How would you respond to someone that thought humanoid robots had souls, but meat-based intelligence didn’t? If they assumed the first, and had zero metric for how you would ever prove the second, then theyd be giving you an impossible task.

    There’s a point to a discussion when both sides agree on a rubric from determining fact from fiction (i.e. rooting it in empiricism) but there’s no point when someone is dug in on their belief with zero method for ever changing it.

    If someone could point to any actual observable difference, I will adapt my beliefs to the evidence. The reverse isn’t possible, because you are starting with religious assumptions, and have don’ know the difference between ideas with no rooting in physical reality and actual statements about material conditions.