Morals are separate from metaphysics, and a moral person would never advocate for eugenics or genocide regardless of their metaphysical beliefs. I personally subscribe to the belief that human minds are computers, and yet feel no urge to replace humans with computers.

As a complete side note, I don't think replacing humans with computers would be a form of eugenics. Eugenics refers to the practice of deciding which humans have a right and/or duty to reproduce for the (supposed) betterment of the species - such as through forced sterilization of "inferior" individuals, incentives for or even compulsory breeding for "superior" individuals etc. Simply killing all humans to allow for machines to rule is more like a form of genocide.

The contract as you signed it might well contain a clause that explicitly says you have to perform arcane rituals to stop the subscription: now you have to have the bank analyze the law in your place of residence on whether the contract itself might be illegal. I do not live in the USA and don't have experience with the credit card dispute system, but I personally doubt that this level of legal analysis would be performed by the bank for your, free of charge even.

I have no doubt that you would win this in court, by the way.

However, if a business fails to do so, and the only way they have to cancel your subscription is via, say, a notarized letter, I don't see how you can convince your bank that you tried to unsubscribe unless you have sent such a notarized letter.

The answer in the "consciousness is a computation" model is that consciousness can arise in any computational medium. But the model doesn't say that any computation is conscious - it says that consciousness is any of a set of specific computations, any computation with properties X, Y, Z whatever. So it's perfectly possible (according to this model) that a GPU running game graphics is not conscious, while a GPU running some future even more advamced LLM is conscious. Or a network of GPUs + storage + whatever.

Of course, I'm not saying that you have to believe any of this - even defining what consciousness is is famously elusive. And there are a lot of people who think consciousness is not materialistic to begin with, or that we have not yet discovered the scientific nature of it.

The example of a yearly subscription paid monthly should make this obvious. You can't exit this arrangement after 6 months and expect to simply not pay the remaining 6 months, as the contract was for a whole year. All this law does is force the business to make it easy for you to cancel any auto-renew for a second year. But if the business doesn't do that and you dispute a payment, how hard do you expect your bank to work to figure out if this payment was for a part of the original contract, or for an auto-renewal you should have been able to easily canceled, but haven't?

It's a simple observation that there is some serious difference between the observable behavior of rocks vs that of bacteria, and it's an interesting question how that arises. Especially since we've tried quite a bit to create a bacteria in a lab and no one has ever succeeded.

The main idea is that in legal contracts, the written signed paper is just evidence for what the agreed-upon contract was. The actual contract is the agreement itself - which the paper may not reflect exactly. If the two parties disagree on what is the actual contract, the paper is of course strong evidence for one side or the other, but it's not the final word, other evidence may be brought that contradicts the written contract and that can be held to be more convincing.

In contrast, the smart contract crowd wants the contract code to represent the final word, and if any party didn't notice that the contract code didn't match the understanding they had of the agreement, too bad.

And it is just as relevant if you believe in panpsychism as it is if you don't - panspsychism holds that rocks and even electrons are conscious to some extent, but that has nothing to do with how we got from organic chemistry to proto-cells (as both protocells and organic molecules have some degree of consciousness in this theory).

Questions of the origin of life are only irrelevant/settled for those who subscribe to explicit divine origins of life, such as Creationists, who hold that God literally created the first life from nothing directly - that it was an unknowable miracle, not a physical process.

Ultimately whether Anthropic is a true supply chain risk for the United States military is a question of fact, and the courts will have to decide. That the President or Secretary of Defense doesn't like a company doesn't make them a supply chain risk.

Ultimately this is for the courts to decide, and the current decision is not final. And while the two Trump-nominated judges agreed with you, the other judge agrees with me - so at least we can say that neither my nor your position is legally absurd.

And the reason Anthropic is an adversary of the USA? They have a clause in their license agreement that their products must not be used in surveillance or military targeting decisions.