| > Would you agree, for the sake of argument, that it's more interesting to discus chatgpt 5.5's similarity to sentient/sapient/conscious than, say, my mechanical toaster? Yes. > Also, you say this like "duck" isn't an arbitrary, artificial category created by humans, a "map not the reality" if you will. > There's very few things that humans can understand to the level of putting them into truly objective scientific categories (various pure elements maybe?), everything else we more or less bodge together for the sake of getting on with life. > It's not like conscious has some kind of formal objective provable definition, even inside the world of human created language and terms This is all fine, philosophically reasonable. And it all holds in complete generality to everything. You could just as well be using this as a springboard to put forth... that toasters could be conscious. > As far as I know, in the real world, if something looks enough like a duck (and can breed with a duck maybe) we, humans, do call it a duck. Glad to see this community of rational thinkers, so they think, abandon their intellectual stance when there’s stonks to be made and AI Churches to found. I am supposed to also have a serious response here. But I don’t. Because we don’t just settle for duck is a duck on any serious topic. We might for pragmatic reasons on completely fungible drive by issues. But for the issue that is consuming everyone’s mind and the economy? Yeah no. |