deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Removed by mod

TSMC is making 2nm chips.

deleted by creator

By that I meant any political activity really. This isn’t a defense of electoralism.

Machines are replacing humans in the economy, and that has material consequences.

Holding onto ideas of human exceptionalism is going to mean being unprepared.

A lot of people see minor obstacles for machines, and conclude they can’t replace humans, and return to distracting themselves with other things while their livelihood is being threatened.

Robotaxis are already operating, and a product to replace most customer service jobs has just been released for businesses to order about 1 months ago.

Many in this thread are navel gazing about how that bot won’t really experience anything when they get created, as if that mattered to any of this.

Is that how scams work?

You state a belief, a tricky scammer asks you why you believe it, and if you fall for the trick and explain your reasoning then poof you lost money?

The jobs with the most people working them are all in the process of automation.

Pretending it’s not happening is going to make it even easier for capital to automate most jobs, because no one tries to stop things they don’t believe in to begin with.

ChatGPT can’t vote.

throughout what? I’ve replied to you exactly once.

First I addressed the behavior of the poster you defended.

Second: Why do you think I emphasized the you in the last comment? Where I’m from it would imply your a different person I’m addressing now.

With that sorted out: Anyone could, but no one can, because there’s no reason for faith, so there’s nothing to share. This community takes an idealist take, not a materialist one.

I understand what you’re saying. Civility doesn’t matter because your ideals are solid, but you wouldn’t waste the time on defending them. You would waste an equal amount of time writing out immature comments avoiding the point in question though. But that doesn’t count, because your being ironic- whereas the coherent comment does count because that’s got to take a lot of effort.

It’s a good excuse for idealists, because they don’t look good when they take it seriously. Materialists tend to humor people with civility because they do convince anyone watching.

Can you name a single difference between the two?

Using concrete materialist language, not vague terms or idealist woo.

Failing over and over again to answer a simple, single question doesn’t suddenly become badass because you acted like a juvenile throughout it.

Removed by mod

If you start with the assumption that humans have a soul, and reject the notion that machines are the same for that reason then yea what is there to discuss?

I can’t disprove your faith. That’s what faith is.

How would you respond to someone that thought humanoid robots had souls, but meat-based intelligence didn’t? If they assumed the first, and had zero metric for how you would ever prove the second, then theyd be giving you an impossible task.

There’s a point to a discussion when both sides agree on a rubric from determining fact from fiction (i.e. rooting it in empiricism) but there’s no point when someone is dug in on their belief with zero method for ever changing it.

If someone could point to any actual observable difference, I will adapt my beliefs to the evidence. The reverse isn’t possible, because you are starting with religious assumptions, and have don’ know the difference between ideas with no rooting in physical reality and actual statements about material conditions.

First off, materialism doesn’t fucking mean having to literally quantify the human soul in order for it to be valid, what the fuck are you talking about friend

Ok, so you are religious, just new-age religion instead of abrahamic.

Yes, materialism and your faith are not compatible. Assuming the existence of a soul, with no material basis, is faith.

That’s a lot of tangents and name calling.

I was indicating that I thought it was absurd that you think my belief system is ‘idealist’ when I am talking about actual physical limitations of this system that will likely prevent it from ever achieving sentience,

Then name what you think would limit sentience in machines, that humans are magically exempt from.

You clearly have a view that something is different, but you just write walls of text avoiding any clear distinction, getting angry and calling me names.

If you had any idea of what would “physically” stop silicon from doing what organic matter can do, you’d name it. And in every post you make, longer than the last, you fail to do that.

Since you can’t keep civil or answer a simple question, I’m going to peace out of this convo ✌️

Bots do something different, even when I give them the same prompt, so that seems to be untrue already.

Even if it’s not there yet, though, what material basis do you think allows humans that capability that machines lack?

Most of the people in this thread seem to think humans have a unique special ability that machines can never replicate, and that comes off as faith-based anthropocentric religious thinking- not the materialist view that underlies Marxism. The latter would require pointing to a specific material structure, or empiricle test to distinguish the two which no one here is doing.

Lol, ‘idealist axiom’. These things can’t even fucking reason out complex math from first principles. That’s not a ‘view that humans are special’ that is a very physical limitation of this particular neural network set-up.

If you read it carefully you’d see I said your worldview was idealist, not the AIs.

Sentience is characterized by feeling and sensory awareness

AI can get sensory input and process it.

Can you name one way a human does it that a machine cannot, or are you relying on a gut feeling that when you see something and identify it it’s different than when a machine process camera input? Same for any other sense really.

If you can’t name one way, then your belief in human exceptionalism is not based in materialism.