Right, so it's just privacy theatre.

How is that irrelevant if the whole statement is literally about when the arguments were first made and supposedly disproven?

> Nowhere does it say that “information wants to be free” was the originator of the idea.

It literally says __now__ that we've seen how lies are also information and can travel even better using the same flow, as if it is something recent.

> It’s like someone used Avatar to discuss how colonialism is portrayed in media, and someone came along to say “Pocahontas did it way before”. Alright, but that doesn’t matter for the argument. We’re discussing the idea itself, its origins do not make a difference for the matter.

If someone says that our views on colonialism were naive before Avatar 2 changed our perception of Avatar, of course it is fair to mention Pocahontas and 300 years of nuanced discussions of colonialism.

Of course, so what? If your implication is that none of the arguments made over 300 years are relevant today, I would say it is pretty obviously completely wrong.

> when you can’t even know if the person on the other side is real or from your own country

Did people in England and France use to know the authors of seditious pamphlets that were produced in the Dutch Republic and smuggled into those countries? Most of them were anonymous. Not only they didn't know the authors, the authors 100% were enabled by foreign actors.

> it’s only distracting from the point

The point: we've seen recently how damaging the fast spread of lies is therefore only naive fools would be against information control. My rebuttal: we've seen how damaging lies are for 300 years, yet it is a deep ongoing debate that many great thinkers contributed to, therefore it is not just a matter of fools believing into something.

Or do you see "the point" to be something different?

Ok, but look at this thread from the POV of someone like me, who reads lots of philosophy daily and who asks you to simply elaborate on your point, and you just continuously keep deflecting from providing an actual argument.

Even in this comment instead of providing an actual philosophically grounded argument based on all those literally great thinkers many of whom I’ve read with great passion you waste your energy on name dropping things that don’t directly support your initial thesis in any way and then you do some meta-commentary on the impossibility of discussing those issues that you can’t even clearly articulate for several days.

I don't want to waste time going over weak uncompelling critique like, if human ~~sound production~~ intelligence is analogue, then ~~digital speakers~~ artificial intelligence is unlikely to be possible (to paraphrase the critique of the Biological Assumption); but I am genuinely interested in the increasing evidence that shows that the foundation of modern AI research is flawed.

I think it is absolutely normal that the core of a theory is based on not directly testable assumptions. And it's normal that people push it forward if it bears fruits, that's not a fallacy in any way, that's normal inquiry that may or may not lead to successful results.

Either there are some serious issues that makes such theories ”flawed in the sense that they cannot account for subjective experience and agency, amongst other things”, or they are just normal theories.

I don't see how any of the works you referenced can account for that either? Since when is the problem of consciousness solved and we can definitely say what does or doesn't result in consciousness?

The real problem with Python is the inexpressiveness of its type system and the mess of typed dicts, dataclasses and pydantic classes.

TypeScript may fail narrowing here and there or require a superfluous assert, but usually writing properly typed code, especially with zod, is the path of least resistance.