vegan

I absolutely hate people throwing around the word 'sentient' like they know what it means. If you just read any dictionary it's pretty obviously not some arbitrary word you can use to say it's ok to kill animals.

I think Eliezer Yudkowsky could probably ask in words not to be killed, but that doesn't mean he contains a spark of awareness like a chicken does.

Love when my "AI expert" has no education on the subject and just makes up random thought experiments with no basis in reality.

And this dipshit is somehow a millionaire.

Gee I wonder if this guy has strong opinions about IQ rating

If input contains kill Print "no kill pls"

Zam my comment is sentient

The hard problem of consciousness? What's that? Also, light switches definitely have feelings, and if you have a lot of light switches you've basically got a hive mind. Turning one light switch off is violence, and turning them all off is genocide.

Edit: Seeing what comm this is, I'd like to make this clear. I will not kill the chicken, but I'd definitely enact genocide on light switches.

:luddite-smash:

the really big switch statement has more likelihood of having sentience than the living breathing entities that experience the earth with us

printf("It's okay to delete me I'm not real");

He is so fucking stupid.

Actually you know what? I hope he keeps talking. I hope he keeps talking about a wider and wider variety of subjects because that increases the odds of any person seeing him talk and going 'Wait a minute, I think this guy doesn't know what he's talking about!', which is the reaction everyone should have

Big Yud is a slavery-fetishizing woman-enslaving predatory monster.

When he isn't dehumanizing human beings to rhetorically uplift his always-around-the-corner god-machines, he goes out of his way to place living beings in hierarchies of worthiness where he's at the very top and everything beneath him exists for his consumption, amusement, or both.

Also, I utterly despise the belief that by denigrating living beings, the implication uplifts the treat-printing machines. I see it everywhere, including on Hexbear sometimes, and I fucking hate it.

This thread, for example, had a lot of examples, many of them now deleted, of "humans are just meat computers" reductionistic bullshit while the same posts elevated chatbots and LLMs into "at least as conscious, if consciousness exists at all" territory.

https://hexbear.net/post/241191

The normal refutation to this is that the LLM is not "telling" you anything, it is producing an output of characters that, according to its training on its data set, look like a plausible response to the given prompt. This is like using standard conditioning methods to teach a gorilla to make gestures corresponding to "please kill me now" in sign language and using that to justify killing it. They are not "communicating" with the symbols in the sense of the semantic meanings humans have assigned the symbols, because the context they have observed the symbols in and used them for is utterly divorced from those arbitrary meanings.

Literal actual dumbass can not tell the difference between a real animal and a ventriloquist puppet

people who disdain philosophy doing philosophy is so exhausting. like sure bud, just assume that "sentience" is a precondition for morally valuable suffering, or even a coherent category.

What an absolute dullard

Jain philosophy has a nice approach to this. Pleasure and pain are symptoms of having a sense eg. touch, sight, taste, etc. plus they consider the mental faculty as a sense. There are living beings with only one sense eg. trees growing towards light, away from obstacles. There are being with many senses, including the mental faculty eg. humans. The more senses you have, or more generally the more complex your senses, the more complex your experience of pleasure and pain eg. dogs whining at high-pitched sounds humans can't hear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_terms_and_concepts

Anyways, the point is that if something has a sense, then maybe don't hurt it. If you really need to, then minimize it, either the pain you cause or the being you choose to hurt in terms of number of senses. A chicken has as many, or almost as many, senses as humans. Don't hurt it. But plants don't suffer as much, probably. That's why Jains are vegetarian (they have to eat something, so best to minimize suffering to do so), and even then only eat parts of plants which don't extinguish lives eg. fruits and leaves which are meant to be picked or can at least be regrown.

An AI arguably has no senses, or only a version of the mental faculty in which it hallucinates mental anguishes (pain not tied to any physical sensation). Turning off an AI is not equivalent to slaughtering an animal. It's more like killing a plant.

Is it just me, or is his tweet written to be very difficult to understand?

Every animal is sentient. If you can’t tell that, you’re a moron.

The GPT-3 that exists before being prompted and the GPT-3 that exists afterwards are identical, it is the same unmoving surface that prompts bounce around in to give a probability to each candidate for the next token. That's just how LLMs work. Even setting aside all the other reasons why this is a ridiculous thing to say, you couldn't make an LLM suffer by interacting with it.

If every chicken that existed was simply a frozen instantiation of some platonic ur-chicken, each totally identical not only to each other but also to themself from one moment to the next, then they too would be incapable of suffering.

Neoliberal subjects are not sentient, all they do is post laughable blogs and cry about people not liking and subscribing to their "content".

guy typing 20x more words than needed has a trash opinion

every time