It doesn't need to be true but a lot of people make it/assume it.

There's a lot of, perhaps casual and uninformed, conversations that strongly imply a deeper understanding of the "physics" of brain chemistry than we actually have, mostly by comparing it to machines we've constructed.

(I believe) We don't need to replicate human neurons and dendrites and whatever else is in there in order to create a sapient "machine", but whether or not we've actually done that isn't being helped by arguing that what we currently have is all that similar to a human brain.

> I have never heard about any principle in philosophy or in science that says that, given enough Looks Like A Duck points, it is a duck. Based on subjective experience, even.

Also, you say this like "duck" isn't an arbitrary, artificial category created by humans, a "map not the reality" if you will.

There's very few things that humans can understand to the level of putting them into truly objective scientific categories (various pure elements maybe?), everything else we more or less bodge together for the sake of getting on with life.

It's not like conscious has some kind of formal objective provable definition, even inside the world of human created language and terms.

As far as I know, in the real world, if something looks enough like a duck (and can breed with a duck maybe) we, humans, do call it a duck.

This is well put. We don't need to imagine how a human views a llm because we can ... just do that. Everyone capable of reading the story is also capable of thinking about how they feel abouy llms that exist right now and you've probably used.

The trick of the original story is inverting your perspective, moving your view point fron yourself to an "other" (which I think is a primary qualifier for most good fiction).

The answer to companies committing fraud is not "buyer beware".

You played with legos as a kid. Congratulations, so did lots of other kids at the time, and so do kids right now. Nothing has actually changed. Legos are still sold in a box with instructions, just like they were 20 years ago and 40 years ago and so on and so forth.

The idea that adults can't play with or enjoy legos is, well, genuinely sad, as in, it invokes the emotion of sadness. Adults are allowed to have fun and play games, whether that be building race cars out of metal or out of lego or any other activity they find joy in.

> At secondary school (age 11 in UK), the LEGO was cast aside as a mere child's toy. We had moved on and the idea of 'still playing with LEGO' would have been a social faux pas.

I genuinely wish you had a better childhood. Maybe you would have grown up into a person who can feel empathy for others.

What do you think would be helping things? Passively sitting in the house waiting for the CEOs to change their minds? Writing polite letters to the local newspaper? Like, whats your theory here?

Genuine question, how do you think serving papers works?

Because you can't ever admit being wrong?

> This is just needless YouTube drama generation. I agree, he should have paid a process server to do the job correctly, but that wouldn't be good business for his YouTube channel.

Your ability to create a fantasy to defend the CEOs in this example is, well, frankly depressing. Like, none of what you said is true, but you just confidently made it up and then put it in a comment, why?

If you don't know what's going on, why comment? Why go beyond that and just make stuff up?

I just don't get people today.

Github (and sourceforge and and) seem to prove this point wrong.

Yeah, good point, they were probably pulled over for being black.