[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.