[mapontosevenths]

People mention it to remind the world that the goal posts have been repeatedly moved by critics, and always will be.

A certain percentage of humans will never acknowledge that machines can be intelligent. Those people should be disqualified from the conversation for the same reason we disqualify biblical literalists from conversations about radio carbon dating.

[ranger_danger]

> A certain percentage of humans will never acknowledge that machines can be intelligent.

Doesn't this assume there IS an objective, quantifiable definition of an "intelligent machine" that is agreed upon by most people? That instead sounds rather subjective to my ears.

[mapontosevenths]

Even failing a single unified definition, every reasonable person should be able to define some subjective line of their own.

Some people don't even have a subjective definition though. They'll continue to deny the machines are intelligent no matter where the line is drawn.

It's not worth debating those folks because to them it is a matter of faith and no amount of reason can convince the unreasonable.

[lolz404]

Can confirm an easy way to win an argument is to remove the decenting voice. Bet that would have went great in civil right and woman sufferage.

[mapontosevenths]

Ignoring the irrational isn't the silencing of dissent, it's ignoring time-wasters who refuse (or are unable) to argue in good faith.

I only get so many hours on earth, I'd rather not spend them debating what the definition of "is" is with someone who would rather litigate tautological nonsense than accept *any* level of evidence as sufficient.

[lolz404]

People can call you irrational. That is an irrational argument...