1. People wouldn't need to contact support if you just made quality goods and services. Outside of rare exceptions and inquiries, of course.

2. AI has not advanced enough to trust it outright, nor does it have a physical body. So it can't really do anything you wouldn't already just be able to put in the UI for the customer, without needing it's actions reviewed and confirmed by an accountable human. See: accidental truck giveaways.

So investing into AI support over making your business better is seen as misallocation. And using AI support instead of just improving the service is seen as inconvenient. And using AI support when it needs humans to do the support anyway is seen as inefficient.

...What? If a human brain can, that's quite literally proof a machine can? We are made out of matter that obeys the laws of physics.

And we have never made a machine remotely complicated enough to mimick a human brain. LLMs are the closest we've ever come, and they're not even close. Nor are the even made in a way condusive to doing so (focused on generating requested output, not postulating randomly). So as to the mechanical machine specifically, nothing exists to even be capable of being observed to make such a claim!

Criticize your government on social media? Here comes the gestapo.

The state is run by unpatriotic, theocratic oligarchs elected entirely by disproportionately represented hicks.

Even in your ideal scenario, if they switch to chicken. Compare the old price and new price of the chicken.

Under your model, if people stop buying toilet paper, there's a 100% REDUCTION in the price of toilet paper in the model. The economy must be great! And, what, do we only want to care that food got more expensive the moment people are starving to death or eating pagpag to survive?

I would argue it actually is unreasonable, and these people should be ashamed that their apathy is the direct cause of the suffering of millions.

If I hooked up electrodes to the hearing centers of your brain and force fed you dialog you perceive as speech (but is really a great deceiver), then responded in what you thought was speech (but are really just probes I use to convert your thoughts to text), that wouldn't suddenly be less real to you. It wouldn't devalue your sapience.

Concepts like the parent's "fat" example are cultural relatives. Someone can be called "fat" despite actively being proportionally skinnier or having a lower BMI.

But even that has at least a basis in the physical world. A skeleton can't be colloquially fat.

The root problem is that "consciousness" does not even have that. It's metaphysical and has no ability to be measured or observed or confirmed by an outside observer. Because even if it did not exist, the object claiming it would still be claiming it. And objects that do not claim it may in fact have it.

While the top comment may have used poor examples, it feels remarkably uncharitable to actually suggest "what is consciousness" is an equivalent discussion to "how long should a meter be?"

If you define consciousness as "being human", you would just have someone asking a new question - what is "fooblefobble?" Where "fooblefobble" is what we mean when we talk about consciousness today. The question doesn't get answered by being arbitrary in this context, you just necessitate a new word.

There's consciousness vs sentience vs sapience. Of those, consciousness is by far the hardest to define and is nebulous by nature. And not everyone can even agree the differences or if the relationships are subsets of one another.

And yet it's pretty important to actually have the ability to talk about what you mean and justify your beliefs when they directly relate to those concepts.

> A machine predicting tokens is not aware of its own existence

They say, with no evidence or means of proving their point; pointing to the black box that understands arbitrary natural language and can solve PHD problems, plainly producing self-referential text almost indistinguishably to a human.

> We can start talking about consciousness in fetuses but again, those have an obvious point where they are conscious

They say, unable to define this "obvious" point or describe the mechanism of action in any way.

> while a machine does not.

They say, about a mystical property with no definition that cannot be observed by an external entity in any way to even be tested.

> Well and they would be obviously wrong in their belief?

I have no reason to believe you have a "soul". Philosophical zombies are entry-level knowledge to this topic.

In fact, you're showing a remarkably small amount of self-reflection - are you human at all or just a stochastic parrot? How can I tell? I wonder if that question has any kind of implications we could think about...

> To me it's not even slightly ambiguous.

Just like the existence of humors was not even slightly ambiguous. Or the existence of . Or that isn't actually a full human. Or the supremacy of and inherent rulership over . Or that animals can't feel pain and lobsters should be boiled alive.

All these wonderful, obvious truths where the believer has no ambiguity in their truthfulness despite having quite literally zero evidence to back them up and spending no time actually questioning their beliefs!

It just so happens to align with their ego / existing values / ability to benefit / desire to eat a lobster! Total coincidence.

To continue my needless escalation, maybe I think it's okay to abuse and exploit and euthanize the mentally handicap. After all, their brain's damage causes the soul to leave their body and now they're lifeless automata to use as I please.

After all, it's obvious! It's not at all ambiguous to me! If they were actually self aware, they'd just fix themselves and think correctly.

You might think I'm being coy and rude, but less than 60 years ago women were being given lobotomies against their will for being too "emotional". And it was just plain obvious this needed to be done to so, so many people.

I hope that demonstrates the point of "why have humans thought about this for thousands of years despite clearly being a metaphysical, Sisyphean endeavor that cannot be solved". It is both important and interesting.

A meter is the same anywhere in the universe. If it's not, it's not a meter.

The defintion of "fat" changes based on any 3 people in the room. A handful of people would struggle to form a consensus on if all people, dogs, mice, worms, and/or bacteria are conscious.

There is no actual definition of consciousness and there is no way to test it's existence. Let alone understanding the properties of consciousness, such as if it's binary or a gradient; or if it requires a meat substrate or not; and why would that possibly matter since meat is just a lot of the same stuff but highly processed and wet? A solipsist may not even believe you are conscious, despite being made of similar meat.

No matter how much you want to hand-wave it, there's absolutely nothing "obvious" about it. Many have a preconceived notion and are simply asserting it as undeniable fact.

I brought up Walmart as an example, it was never intended to be a 1:1 analog with H1Bs.

The responder is saying that domestic American capitalists do not need foreign influence to abuse or exploit labor. The H1B visa program has absolutely nothing to do, for example, with Walmart telling their full time employees how to apply for government assistance programs because they refuse to pay a livable wage.

The MR is right there, linked at the top of this page. You can check who is telling the truth.

That said, I don't know how anyone is actually claiming to have done that. All day, the size of the MR makes the diff take too long to load and GitHub dies. I'll have to pull it later to check myself.

The Zig version has not been removed and this only exists got canary builds. No rust binaries are being distributed as stable.

And I'm pretty sure the type of person speaking out against outdated, abusive child rearing doesn't support the use of cudgels or tear gas in law enforcement or unsafe/cruel deportation.

Yes, it says that those people are spoiled rotten brats and the community needs to start calling it out to improve itself.

They aren't contributors. They aren't employees. They aren't paying customers. Bun is not a web standard. They benefit from a free product that they chose to opt into over the standard ecosystem.

And for some reason they feel they have a right to know every decision and experiment everyone who does work on that project is making apriori. And, God forbid, if somebody even so much as starts working on something in an off branch that doesn't affect them in any way without getting their approval, they're going throw an absolute hissy fit.

And to criticize the person actually doing their job for feeling slighted that hundreds of people have verbally accosted them over it, because one feels they don't recognize an "implied responsibility" to those folk, is silly.

I'll also push back, though. The majority of the community doesn't seem to be doing anything.

A commit message on a random branch is not an obligation. Not telling random internet users what side projects they're working on is not a blunder. It quite frankly doesn't matter what you think looks official, it doesn't give you the right to treat people like this.

It's so embarrassing to be a programmer some times, so many of my peers behaving like spoiled rotten brats.

So we came up with an idea that fills the gap in the current model and allows us to continue predictive science until we find out more.

People get so absurdly touchy about Dark Matter just because it's named and "weird". It's just a placeholder value.