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
[–] 4 points 2 years ago (3 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (2 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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment