[bigB]

Well while I see your eagerness to defend the definition of human, it may for futures sake be a very valid question. It may not be too far in the future here we will see brain enhancements, or maybe even ocular implants which a "human" will read with but extra processing takes place elsewhere by machines. What if its a blind human, using machine assisted reading, what if humans are reading and inputing data into the machine ? All these questions and more should be asked now....so we can plan for the future. Right now is a great example, we are beginning to see the explosion of AI creation, yet nothing to govern it. Dont be so quick to smack down questions until you consider the broader implications is all I am saying

[distcs]

> I see your eagerness to defend the definition of human

I am not eager to defend the definition of human. Your comment has interesting points that could start an interesting discussion in its own thread. I see you do have a separate comment thread about it. So that's all good and fair.

But in this comment thread, you are completely missing my point! The OP has a very specific question that many HN readers care about. The question is complex and there aren't any easy answers for the question. My point is that the OP does not deserve shallow dismissals. Heck, no post deserves shallow dismissals. If a post is so bad that it should not be on HN, flag it and move on!

So my point is not to defend any definition or any particular school of thought or any particular view of AI. My point is to defend the OP from shallow dismissals. I am seeing these shallow dismissals more and more often these days and it makes reading HN comments a chore sometimes.

[iinnPP]

Your first paragraph: This comment is such a shallow dismissal of a good post that brings up a genuine and legally complex question that many readers of HN care about.

My first thought when looking at this thread was: I wonder if someone will try to claim their robot is a man and that it has been created. What might that imply?

[Dylan16807]

> My first thought when looking at this thread was: I wonder if someone will try to claim their robot is a man and that it has been created. What might that imply?

It implies that they are wrong, and raises no interesting legal or philosophical questions.

Come back in a couple decades and we can check if we're getting closer.

A tangent to pondering the sci-fi future isn't entirely unwarranted, but it should be presented as a hypothetical and not as if it's a practical barrier to OP's question. "What if some day an AI approaches being human?" or something.

On the other hand if the meaning was supposed to be about human assistance, it would help to specify that and also talk about what kind of assistance might present meaningful trouble.

Or maybe they meant something else too. Such a wide breadth of topics being gestured at with only two words is not a good way to get a point across.

[iinnPP]

I disagree. I think the brevity was warranted and beneficial to the message. I think it is easy to link the logic and thus contributing to the conversation in a meaningful way has a lower barrier for entry.

I don't think attacking people for asking questions is contributing anything at all however.

Your response to my immensely simplified question with "they are wrong" fails to acknowledge a potentially real problem. A problem where too late is immediately followed by a successful attempt.

I see a lot of this today, much more so on HN lately too. I see people failing to be creative and resorting to some kind of "pics or it didn't happen" stance.

The idea that an AI that might be pushed through a legal challenge related to the constitution isn't far fetched in the slightest. It is guaranteed to occur. Not preparing for it is expected and while I love the feeling I get every time I predict the obvious but I would rather it stop occurring. It's short lived and the consequences have been growing.

You think AI is 20 years off. I happen to know for a fact it is already here.

Humans are not complicated.

[Dylan16807]

> I think it is easy to link the logic and thus contributing to the conversation in a meaningful way has a lower barrier for entry.

It's two words. The problem is that it's too easy to link it to multiple, different arguments.

As a more extreme example, if I say "Well, except..." that is a bad comment even if people can fill in the blank with stuff.

> The idea that an AI that might be pushed through a legal challenge related to the constitution isn't far fetched in the slightest.

As being human? Today's tech? Yes it is.

[bigB]

Well i did not see it as shallow, rather more of a succinct question.... but we all have different perspectives and views i guess.

[iinnPP]

Out of the entire thread, it was the only question I found that was worth reading. Pity people had to go and take issue with it instead of engaging properly and as the guidelines suggest.

These topics don't get much time before whatever force is at play flags them out of view.