This is not a SFW instance. NSFW communities will be tagged, and efforts will be made to keep SFW communities clean, but proceed at your own comfort level.
someday soon the bots might also count as a subset
Haha, fuck no.
If you mean LLMs, you should give anything Sam Altman says about AGI about as much credence as you give Elon Musk talking about self driving cars. If you mean sapient Fediverse users (fill in the blanks there) who identify as robots, they tend to get really angry if you refer to them as people.
I think in fantasy you do have what can only be called non-human people. The definition for the word “person” tends to include “human,” but only because in real life human persons are the only ones that are known to exist.
I’ve had enough non-human friends that I extend the definition to other animals. I’ve personally known dogs and cats that display remarkable personality and emotional intelligence, not to mention all the great examples of non-human animal communication and love available online. Animals are such people, when you get to know them.
Same, personhood isn’t limited to humans. If you can be a best friend or confidant or true co-companion that is mutually beneficial and mutually understood, that’s all I need to know there’s a person in there. I’ll even extend it to other animals that exhibit complex thought, considerations, relflective behavior, but I don’t push that on other human people, if they want to join me in doing so, they’re my kind of people. The more the merrier. I feel bad for people who can’t see animals that earned their friendship as fiends, as people.
Where the waters really get muddy is in deciding where to draw the line between ‘person’ and ‘not a person’ when it comes to AI.
Current AI is almost certainly not a person … but at some point, it seems almost inevitable that it will progress to the point where it crosses the line of personhood. Where do we draw that line? How will we know if an AI has crossed it? And how do we address the rights and responsibilities of an artificial person? Is it then unethical to turn it off or delete it? Is it okay to turn it off as long as you intend to turn it back on later? Should it have a say in government, be able to vote? Can you get married to it? Does it have a right to create copies of itself the way you have a right to have children? Is it unethical to make copies of it without its consent? Can it own property? Can it own copyrights to ‘creative’ works it produces? Does allowing a corporation to own it and tell it what to do amount to slavery? Do we have an obligation to provide it with server space and electricity if it can’t provide those for itself? Can/should it be punished if it breaks laws, and how?
Hey, man. I don’t make much effort to keep up with the bleeding edge of AI development, and I also don’t know exactly how to define a ‘person’. Cut me some slack.
Fair point. But I’d say regardless of how much advancement is made in (realistic nowadays) AI, it will never even be close to being a person. It can not even be remotely argued that AI is “12% of a person”. It’s a category difference. Even given our lack of understanding of the meatphysics involved, we know at least enough about the world to come up with an empiric definition of “person” and I’d say the most viable interpretations (“living organism of sufficient and demonstrable complexity characterized by homologation and similarity to the traits of the hominid self”) readily discounts AI for the foreseeable future.
living organism of sufficient and demonstrable complexity characterized by homologation and similarity to the traits of the hominid self
No AI could ever qualify for that, no matter how advanced, because it’s not a ‘living organism’.
And you’d definitely want to be more clear about what ‘homologation’ means, because ‘similarity to the traits of the hominid self’ is very vague and it could potentially be argued that current AI already does that.
There’s also the huge question of how much complexity is ‘sufficient’…
Furries who engage in erotic furry play (sometimes called yiffing ) partner with other furries, not with actual animals.
Anyway, they are persons and have rights, although the MAGA movement would very much like to strip them of their rights, regard them as mentally ill and disabled, and confine them to institutions. But then, MAGA wants to strip rights of anyone who isn’t MAGA.
Otherkin and therians have entered the chat… The slop is steep and has far too many complex hazards to even attempt to go down. I advise agasint this line of questioning.
As a furry, let me assure you that while the furry fandom is incredibly broad and covers a wide range of interests with surprisingly little overlap, perhaps the one thing that unites all of us is how much we despise zoophiles.
If you’d like to see proof of this, look up Hypnotist Sappho.
An argument I overheard recently:
Well, “people” and “humans” aren’t the same thing. One’s a subset of the other.
Problem with getting too philosophical here is that someday soon the bots might also count as a subset. Then things get really complicated.
Haha, fuck no.
If you mean LLMs, you should give anything Sam Altman says about AGI about as much credence as you give Elon Musk talking about self driving cars. If you mean sapient Fediverse users (fill in the blanks there) who identify as robots, they tend to get really angry if you refer to them as people.
Mate, wait till you learn about otherkin and therians. Things are already REALLY complicated. lol
I think in fantasy you do have what can only be called non-human people. The definition for the word “person” tends to include “human,” but only because in real life human persons are the only ones that are known to exist.
Sadly, in the US, we have non-human persons. They’re called corporations, and for the moment they have more rights than humans do.
Furries count as human persons, even if they identify as another kind of beastie.
I’ve had enough non-human friends that I extend the definition to other animals. I’ve personally known dogs and cats that display remarkable personality and emotional intelligence, not to mention all the great examples of non-human animal communication and love available online. Animals are such people, when you get to know them.
Same, personhood isn’t limited to humans. If you can be a best friend or confidant or true co-companion that is mutually beneficial and mutually understood, that’s all I need to know there’s a person in there. I’ll even extend it to other animals that exhibit complex thought, considerations, relflective behavior, but I don’t push that on other human people, if they want to join me in doing so, they’re my kind of people. The more the merrier. I feel bad for people who can’t see animals that earned their friendship as fiends, as people.
Where the waters really get muddy is in deciding where to draw the line between ‘person’ and ‘not a person’ when it comes to AI.
Current AI is almost certainly not a person … but at some point, it seems almost inevitable that it will progress to the point where it crosses the line of personhood. Where do we draw that line? How will we know if an AI has crossed it? And how do we address the rights and responsibilities of an artificial person? Is it then unethical to turn it off or delete it? Is it okay to turn it off as long as you intend to turn it back on later? Should it have a say in government, be able to vote? Can you get married to it? Does it have a right to create copies of itself the way you have a right to have children? Is it unethical to make copies of it without its consent? Can it own property? Can it own copyrights to ‘creative’ works it produces? Does allowing a corporation to own it and tell it what to do amount to slavery? Do we have an obligation to provide it with server space and electricity if it can’t provide those for itself? Can/should it be punished if it breaks laws, and how?
Deluded statement of the week!
Hey, man. I don’t make much effort to keep up with the bleeding edge of AI development, and I also don’t know exactly how to define a ‘person’. Cut me some slack.
Fair point. But I’d say regardless of how much advancement is made in (realistic nowadays) AI, it will never even be close to being a person. It can not even be remotely argued that AI is “12% of a person”. It’s a category difference. Even given our lack of understanding of the meatphysics involved, we know at least enough about the world to come up with an empiric definition of “person” and I’d say the most viable interpretations (“living organism of sufficient and demonstrable complexity characterized by homologation and similarity to the traits of the hominid self”) readily discounts AI for the foreseeable future.
No AI could ever qualify for that, no matter how advanced, because it’s not a ‘living organism’.
And you’d definitely want to be more clear about what ‘homologation’ means, because ‘similarity to the traits of the hominid self’ is very vague and it could potentially be argued that current AI already does that.
There’s also the huge question of how much complexity is ‘sufficient’…
I’m all for it.
Not in Medieval European law.
deleted by creator
An argument or a podcast featuring two dudes?
If furries aren’t people; Then furries fucking animals isn’t beastiality.
This is a very slippery slope. 😓
They’re not the ones engaging in that, that’s the fbi
FBI arresting furries for ostracizing people who fuck dogs
Furries who engage in erotic furry play (sometimes called yiffing ) partner with other furries, not with actual animals.
Anyway, they are persons and have rights, although the MAGA movement would very much like to strip them of their rights, regard them as mentally ill and disabled, and confine them to institutions. But then, MAGA wants to strip rights of anyone who isn’t MAGA.
Otherkin and therians have entered the chat… The slop is steep and has far too many complex hazards to even attempt to go down. I advise agasint this line of questioning.
As a furry, let me assure you that while the furry fandom is incredibly broad and covers a wide range of interests with surprisingly little overlap, perhaps the one thing that unites all of us is how much we despise zoophiles.
If you’d like to see proof of this, look up Hypnotist Sappho.