Blake Lemoine comes to mind, or Richard Dawkins [1] if you want someone with a weightier name.

> I think youve created a type of strawman

Why are the only objections to what I said about proponents of AI consciousness coming from people who are not proponents but insist that I'm talking about them? And how does someone else's inability to understand the meaning of the word "proponent" make me guilty of creating a strawman?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/may/05/richard-d...

If it's true it should be trivial to provide said evidence.

And in this case, I was not wrong. The "recommended" solution was Opus 5's typical overengineering for a use case that would never be needed.

I'm used to machines malfunctioning, but having one willfully disobey me, and even with a touch of disrespect, is just...what a time to be alive.

In general, the more senior the employee, the more equity they have in the company.

I said irrelevant, because your argument does not contradict the point that was being made. Your first comment was a list of scenarios that literally had nothing do with what you were replying to. And your "superset" comment was trying to shoot down a general observation about human behavior by pointing out that it isn't a mathematically rigorous model, as if it was ever intended or claimed to be. It is not my fault that nonsense and pedantry are irrelevant, but I'm sorry to inform you that they are.

> a conversation you admit to not understanding

I understand perfectly what you're saying. The source of my confusion is your insistence that it matters. It's like I told you that apples are edible and you keep insisting that they categorically aren't because some people don't like them, and also occasionally one of them might have a worm in it.

> trying to push me out of the conversation

My brother in Christ, all I want is for you to just stay in the conversation for once.

Anyway, this is pretty firmly in "playing chess with a pigeon" territory now. Have a good one.

I'm getting tired of having to direct the conversation back to the actual topic. It's okay to just bow out when you're wrong, you don't have to continuously derail a conversation with bullshit just because you're out of your depth. You're not fooling anyone with it.

You then listed a bunch of people who might vote for it for some non-self-serving reason, let's call them Group B.

Your comment implies that the existence of Group B makes Group A not-self-serving, when in fact it is as irrelevant to Group A's motives as my grandmother being a bicycle.

> Btw, it's a bit rude to pattern-match a thought-terminating cliche followed by declaring your point of view to be objectively true.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

You can debate whether it's justifiable or not, but it is self serving by definition.

Open source licenses are only enforceable because of copyright law. How are you going to enforce GPL3 when you have no legal authority to say what people are allowed to do with your code?

I've observed the opposite--complaints are often more heavily downvoted than the original downvoted comment. The one I originally replied to is an example, at least at the moment.