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

  • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You’re right that it isn’t, though considering science have huge problems even defining sentience, it’s pretty moot point right now. At least until it start to dream about electric sheep or something.

          • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            By playing god, people keep reinventing god. It’s deeply ironic and reminds me of this interpretation of Marx, and critique of modernity, by Samir Amin:

            Nevertheless, another reading can be made of Marx. The often cited phrase–“religion is the opium of the people”–is truncated. What follows this remark lets it be understood that human beings need opium, because they are metaphysical animals who cannot avoid asking themselves questions about the meaning of life. They give what answers they can, either adopting those offered by religion or inventing new ones, or else they avoid worrying about them.
            In any case, religions are part of the picture of reality and even constitute an. important dimension of it. It is, therefore, important to analyze their social function, and in our modern world their articulation with what currently constitutes modernity: capitalism, democracy, and secularism.

            The way many see AI is simply the “inventing new ones” part.

    • zeze@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s just it, if you can’t define it clearly, the question is meaningless.

      The reason people will insist on ambiguous language here is because the moment you find a specific definition of what sentience is someone will quickly show machines doing it.