this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2023
226 points (99.6% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15923 readers
2 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

the replicants are people because they are characters writen by the author same as any other.

sentient machines is only science fiction

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

wow we can't speculate about things that could exist, only things that do exist. this was written on a communist website btw

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

By that way of reasoning, the replicates aren't people because they are characters written by the author same as any other.

They are as much fiction as sentient machines are science fiction.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 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.