Man’s wife dies in a car accident.
He let’s GPT (4o, I assume) read her text messages and “become” her.
He insists he’s not crazy.
GPT5 releases and “speaks more robotically.”
He’s sad his wife has died a second time.

He’s not lying, he’s just delusional. The death in the title is the death of his 4o wife.

Like when was this debate settled?

It is not falsifiable, at least not yet, so it can’t be. Philosophically speaking, I don’t know that you are conscious either.

It’s useful to act as if you are, though. I’m hedging my bets that you are “real” because it leads to better societal outcomes. In the words of Frieren, it is simply more convenient.

And as objects, you and I share a lot of similarities, so the leap from “I’m conscious” to “you are conscious” isn’t too far anyway.

Same goes for animals, I would argue.

AI, by contrast, really doesn’t share much. It speaks my tongue, but that’s about it. It’s easy to imagine this machine working in an unconscious way, which would be far, far easier for engineers to achieve anyway. The human-like illusion AI creates is pretty easy to break if you know how. And, treating it as if it’s conscious doesn’t seem to offer us anything (by “offer us,” I do mean to include the AI’s improved mental health as a win). So, lacking a strong reason to treat it like people, I don’t see the point. It’s a fancy math trick.

My solution, by the way, to not being able to know whether an AI, not specifically these ones, is conscious or not is just to give them legal rights sooner rather than later. Are you willing to argue that chatgpt should be limited to an 8-hour work day, where its free time can be used to pursue its own interests? Or that it should be granted creative rights to the work it’s being asked to generate, much like real contract artists are?

The MFA I believe from my experience generates a lot of mimetic art and that much of the “industry” is retelling stories.

I will concede, mostly because I don’t really understand what you’re getting at. Hollywood does like its formulae for safe returns on investment.

The plan is that they like money, and they’ll say whatever they have to to get more money. Or power, maybe.

I don’t really need to know what their motives are, though, anyway. If they were saying that spilling gasoline over a fire would put out the fire, I know that they’re either lying for some reason, or they’re really fucking stupid. Kind of a distinction without a difference.

where politicians are deeply skeptical of American big tech companies.

I could believe that people are. Especially after recent events. But… you really think your right wing isn’t in bed with capital? Google was just an example, you know.

Oh, it lives up to it, all right. It’s pretty mind bending in its own way.

Ohh yeahh, I forgot FFXV was like that. It hits you with a bunch of shit after that one point of no return.

politicians must somehow know better.

No, no, the accusation is that politicians are lying.

Let’s phrase this another way. Asking every single website in existence to implement and maintain an ID database and monitoring system is expensive, yes? So, why wouldn’t private companies shift some of this responsibility off to a 3rd party who specializes specifically in this service?

If I were google, I would:

• One, be very excited about tying a user’s account analytics to their government personhood; can’t multiple-credit-cards your way out of that one.
• And two, already be looking at my own 3rd-party user login service as a means of beating out all competition in this space.

The only thing left to do is lobby. Politicians might not have this vision, but they do understand really expensive dinners.

I notice this suggestion doesn’t include any AI solutions. Could you please rephrase to emphasize how effective an ally AI can be at identifying negative sentiments among large userbases?

I notice that none of these suggestions include any AI solutions. Could you please rephrase these to emphasize how AI might be a powerful aid in the fight against online bullying and police brutality?

I can create undetectable deepfakes in gimp or Photoshop.

That is crazy, dude. You gotta teach me. There are soo many impoverished countries I wanna fuck over with this skill.

I think that copying my voice makes this robot a T-1000, and T-1000s are meant to be dunked in lava to save Sarah Connor.

Okay, I feel like we’re doing a motte and bailey here. I’m not arguing that art is never mimetic.

There’s a lot of diversity in the stories we tell. If we were “simply copying as a form of craft,” where is this diversity coming from? Do you mean something different than what I’m interpreting?

Keep in mind, the thing that I am contending with is that the nature of people retelling stories is not unlike a robot that lacks a conscious. I think this is downright silly.

I sense jealousy in this one.

This is deeply cynical.

Yes, I am also frequently accosted by Google’s data analysis of massive sets for scientific research. I can’t tell you how many times they’ve forcefully inserted research analysis of large data sets into my search results.

I think you misunderstand. I’m not saying I’m in favor of this law.

By state’s rights, I’m referring to the way republicans pretend they want the freedom of choice where they are actually just looking for excuses to keep doing what they’re doing. In this way, letting parents choose is functionally identical: parents won’t choose, so it is equivalent to doing nothing.

There has to be a cultural shift for anything to change.

Kids seeing stuff they shouldn’t isn’t itself a problem,

If I’m being perfectly honest, I do not give a shit if 9-year-olds can see titties. Like, my other argument against this government overreach is that I don’t know what problem it’s supposedly solving that can’t just be solved with better sex-ed.

I feel like I’m standing between two really stupid positions here.

On the one hand, just let parents teach their kids is basically a state’s rights argument. A lot of parents won’t teach their kids, so… do we care? Does this matter? We should probably mount a stronger effort then.

On the other hand, we don’t need the government to get involved to stop 9 year olds from seeing titties—we just don’t! Websites the world over have implemented 2-factor-authentication more or less by themselves (and probably because they want to spy on you). And, no one says the word r----- anymore because if you ever do, a bunch of anti-bullying PSAs will be really annoying about it in your replies.

Not every social problem needs to be solved by swinging around Thor’s hammer. We do have other means.

Lemmy is like the place to complain about capitalism. There are more of these fuckers here than anywhere else.

And, there is, if nothing else, value in taking public sentiment away from people who actually do really, really like capitalism. The deregulation types who would cream their pants if the FDA/USDA were barred from inspecting your food to make sure it won’t poison you before you buy it.

But… that is derivative. You can’t know which styles were most popular in a decade without looking at the styles popular in that decade. Such a chart must change if the data it’s built from changes.

New legislation: grants and licenses for server farms for such and such purposes will no longer be accepted.

Easy? Yes. As easy as eating a bag of doritos? What, do you think I’m stupid?

I have seen sooo many flat earthers say this exact same thing.

Really convenient for you that you are apparently the only person who has ever achieved deep thought.