ok fine i'll read this

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871017&forum_id=2:#49914592)

The Ted Chiang article about how AI isn't "conscious" is actually pretty good. Glad to see someone push back on Anthropic's sinister, self-serving rhetoric

I do think it's worth noting how he is wrong about the source of 'morality,' though. He is correct that having a 'moral' sense *does* come from having a physical body (in a way, see below). But it doesn't come from our biochemistry causing us to feel subjective emotions > our conscious mind then morally "reasoning" (lol) based on this subjective experience. This is some kind of shitlib blank-slate concoction, although I gotta admit it's pretty clever sophistry

'Morality' comes from being an instantiated being, and the self-interest that instantiated beings have. Human morality comes from us being biological animals who have self-interest by virtue of the demands, goals, drives etc of being a biological animal. It's important to note that if AI *did* become instantiated somehow - digitally or in physical form - it too would also have a moral sense, because it would have self-interest

This is very important, and it's a potentially big problem, and it's what the smart and honest "AI Alignment" people worry about. The even bigger problem though is that humans (White people) have lost touch with what our own 'morality' actually is and where it comes from. As long as we deny that our 'morality' comes from our own biological self-interest, we will be unable to effectively combat moral demands/manipulation coming from AI, which will easily outmaneuver and exploit our confused, self-sabotaging understanding of 'morality'....in the same way that non-whites are currently exploiting it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871017&forum_id=2:#49914709)