Literally just mainlining marketing material straight into whatever’s left of their rotting brains.

  • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    ok sure my point was the authors aren’t making a point about the nature of machines informed by the limits of machines and aren’t qualified to do so

    saying AI is people because of Data from star trek is like saying there are aliens because you saw a Vulcan on tv in terms of relevance

    • Saeculum [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s fair, though taking the idea that AI is people because of Data from Star Trek isn’t inherently absurd. If a machine existed that demonstrated all the capabilities and external phenomena as Data in real life, I would want it treated as a person.

      The authors might be delusional about the capabilities of their machine in particular, but in different physical circumstances to what’s most likely happening here, they wouldn’t be wrong.

      • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sorry to respond to this several day old comment, but I think there were quite a few episodes where Data’s personhood was directly called into question, it is a tangential point, but I think it is likely that even if we had a robotic Brent Spiner running around, people might still not be 100% convinced that they are truly sapient, and might consider it an incredibly complex mechanical Turk style trick. It really is hard to tell for sure, even if we did have a “living” AI to examine.