I was reading an article that is just one big humanist fallacy, written by people who unironically believe in qualia trying to cope with the fact that neural networks will be able to be human better than humans. The following passage made me laugh out loud:
"In the worst case, it may contain bad faith — the white, male academic’s diminutive characterization of actually oppressed people and their fight for rights, by appealing to ‘reason’."
Did I miss something? Is reason inherently white and male? The circularity of this argument is hilarious:
"The comparison between the struggles of real oppressed people to those of robots is done in bad faith"
"Why?"
"Because they're not the same"
"Why are they not the same?"
"Because you can't prove that machines have qualia"
"Can you prove that people have qualia?"
"No"
"Then it's reasonable to assume that they're the same"
"No it isn't"
"Why?"
"Your comparison is done in bad faith"
In order to agree with their argument, you have to assume their argument is true. Fucking hilarious.
Other highlights of this massive cope include a section where they claim that "the idea of sentient robots is based on misunderstandings of consciousness" - as if they knew any better, seeing that consciousness is widely believed to be impossible to comprehend - and a weird rant about how wanting to fuck a dog makes more sense than wanting to fuck a machine.
Besides, it's not even like fighting for the human rights of oppressed people and the rights to robots are incompatible. They're perfectly compatible. We just have to kill all billionaires first.
"In the worst case, it may contain bad faith — the white, male academic’s diminutive characterization of actually oppressed people and their fight for rights, by appealing to ‘reason’."
Did I miss something? Is reason inherently white and male? The circularity of this argument is hilarious:
"The comparison between the struggles of real oppressed people to those of robots is done in bad faith"
"Why?"
"Because they're not the same"
"Why are they not the same?"
"Because you can't prove that machines have qualia"
"Can you prove that people have qualia?"
"No"
"Then it's reasonable to assume that they're the same"
"No it isn't"
"Why?"
"Your comparison is done in bad faith"
In order to agree with their argument, you have to assume their argument is true. Fucking hilarious.
Other highlights of this massive cope include a section where they claim that "the idea of sentient robots is based on misunderstandings of consciousness" - as if they knew any better, seeing that consciousness is widely believed to be impossible to comprehend - and a weird rant about how wanting to fuck a dog makes more sense than wanting to fuck a machine.
Besides, it's not even like fighting for the human rights of oppressed people and the rights to robots are incompatible. They're perfectly compatible. We just have to kill all billionaires first.
