We stipulate that other human beings are conscious from their behavior and how it relates to ours when it is accompanied by our personal introspective experience or "awareness" of being conscious during normal cognition. The process for ascribing consciousness to LLMs would be same: A stipulation on the basis of behavior that relates to our own behavior and how it appears to be linked to the introspective experience of being conscious.

> A random scientist's warning holds no more weight than a hobo on the street's warning

You must be joking, and I wish people would do that less often when talking about serious topics.

If a seismologist has evidence that an earthquake is likely to occur in a certain area, should they not warn the public about it? I would say they clearly should, and any other view about this seems bizarre to me. I find it equally implausible to not call a seismologist who warns about an impending earthquake a scientist. They're a geophysicist or geologist. Or take an astronomer warning about a possible collision of a meteor with Earth -- astronomy is a science, so why would that person not be called a scientist?

There is a an array of scientific disciplines for whom consulting (in your sense of the word) is a frequent, though not primary part of their activity, and we certainly still call them scientists. Material science, vulcanology, epidemiology, seismology, meteorology, biology, climate science, economics,... basically any science that involves the study of processes that might have important consequences for mankind.

It's false and somewhat naive to claim that such evaluations play no role in science, they are a crucial part of many sciences. For instance, they're needed to find worthwhile subjects of study. Not everything is theoretical physics.

Many sciences are concerned with the consequences of human actions and it's hard if not impossible to describe these in meaningful ways without applying some criteria for what outcomes are good (desirable, positively evaluated) and what outcomes are bad (not desirable, negatively evaluated).

Besides, there is a whole area of science that maybe is more like engineering but is clearly worthwhile, too, even if it's not strictly a natural science only. For example, urban planning might not be a science in the strict sense but it's clearly important and involves scientific studies.

If policy makers can't get from climate scientist's an evaluation of the potential consequences of climate changes, then who else would produce these for them? Should they just make it up on the fly?

Or am I missing some trick / dark GUI pattern? Just want to make sure.

Judge on your own if you have the time. I can't recommend the reading.

The security justification for this measure is not credible.

1. The US "intervention" in WW2 was fully justified because the US was attacked. It's also justified to help another country that is attacked, for example the US campaign against Iraq during the First Gulf war was justified. Both were defensive actions, not wars of aggression. Preventive wars are also wars of aggression, though, and classified as such by international law. There are fairly direct equivalents of all of this in regular penal law.

2. I never claimed I cannot be mistaken. It's best to focus on arguments, not persons.

> Great. Then no war is acceptable.

War has at least two sides (often more). A war of aggression is never acceptable. You've got that right. That's also how it's viewed in international law. Defending against a war of aggression is always acceptable. Helping someone defend against a war of aggression is also acceptable. There is a third category, a military intervention by a broad alliance legitimized by some international body. That is in the "it depends" category but plays no role here. Now countries that start wars of aggression know all that and therefore often argue they're just defending themselves. I'm stating that this is a pretense and not a correct justification in this particular case of the US attacking Iran. I'm not planning to go into the details why this is the case, it is obvious enough anyway. Just to make this clear.

I have no comments about the rest of your comment, which, frankly speaking, to me mostly sounds like self-aggrandizing remarks. I was mostly referring to how established international law looks at the matter and your personal views interest me less. Have a good day!

The moral point of view is that a war of aggression violates the sovereignty of the people in the attacked country. The aggressor country's officials are not elected by the people of the defending country, nor do they in any other way represent the people of that country. They have no right to decide the fate of the people in another country.

> How do you know without a discussion that you are right?

I'm reasonably certain about that because I've studied philosophy and worked in ethics, though not specifically on any issues concerning international rights. I'm also overall a well-educated person with an intact sense of justice.

> This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is to show that Iran was in forever war with the US through either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of other states.

No it's not a straw man. You came up with the 1983 event, not me. It would have been a straw man argument if I suddenly had come up with that. My reply to your position is that there are no "forever wars" - this category does not exist in international right and obviously makes no sense. Once you start justifying your attacks with a "forever war" you're in the realm of historical justifications, and these are principally wrong. Why? Because you can find some historical justification for just about any war you want to start. The whole world would be constantly at war if historical justifications were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.

> Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?

I believe you're trolling. In any case, that is not the implication. Not every act of aggression is an act of war. However, the US military has just started a widespread bombing campaign, and that is an act of war. The US is the aggressor not just from an international rights point of view, they're the aggressor as evidenced by the speech of the US President.

> Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?

Not at all, and I didn't say that.