[grzm]

I'm sorry you interpreted my use of "charitable" in some negative way. That wasn't my intent. I see too many discussions where people argue the worst position of the person their talking with, rather than the assuming they're arguing in good faith and clarify the position. I included the "charitable" statement because I wanted to show my intent was not to do that. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

As for the following:

"If you're saying that I am the same as a hammer, then I disagree."

This was one branch of the question "Can we talk meaningfully talk about the difference between a hammer and me"? This was in response to your statement "You're not as different from a hammer as you think", which I read as pointing towards the question of whether such a distinction is meaningful. I don't think you take such an absolutist position, and I'm surprised you read it that way. I can only apologize if you did.

It seems we're talking past each other, so I'll leave it at that. Thank you for taking the time to engage me.

[solipsism]

I understood what you meant by "charitable". My point was, if you're being charitable, assume I don't think you're so like a hammer that you don't deserve different labels.

My point is that you're as different from a hammer as an AI is different from a hammer. You seem to be lumping yourself into a separate category. This is hubris.

You won't find a single line separating hammerness from AIness. This makes no sense. The categories can be compared on all kinds of axes.

The categorization that your brain applies to things is arbitrary and flawed. And invented. When you realize this, questions that used to seem deep become trite and boring.