Marcus shared:
A third option is to think harder about what moral respect really
means. Bender seemed to not think very deeply when it came to animals.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ai-artificial-intelligence-chatbots-emily-m-bender.html
OMG! <a contracted-text contemporary pop-culture utterance> this
article is deep, broad, dense and rich IMO <also a ctcpcu>.
As I read through it (I started to skim the intro, maybe the summary,
maybe a few words or quotes that stood out, but after the first
paragraph or two got drawn into a full line-by-line read) I was drawn
into what feels like the story behind the story. Still somewhat
superficial in detail, but a level of detail more complete (depth and
breadth) than what I have encountered casually. Folks here probably
know a great deal of the referents this article uses but much of it was
very new to me.
I found at least a dozen paragraphs/passages/points-made that seemed
highly relevant to FriAM threads of (mostly recent in non-internet time)
yore:
* DaveW's complaints about the machine-metaphor for (human?)
consciousness (or mind?)
* GlenR's assertions about (and please correct me because I am wrong)
about the illusion that communication exists
* The analogy of AI artifacts as "counterfeit people" opposite how we
treat counterfeit money and how perhaps News Talking Heads (see
assertions of "fake news" and the recent spate of exposures of
Faux's deep duplicity in these matters), and politicians (notably
George Santos, but many other variants) are already "counterfeit
people".
* Repeated references to the implications of AI artifacts not being
about the artifacts (and their actual abilities) but our individual
and collective reactions to them, and the "world we create"
(referencing intersubjectivity) in response.
* As a meta-point to the last, one quote was
o /“From here on out, the safe use of artificial intelligence
requires demystifying the human condition,” Joanna Bryson/
* Arguments against "Artificial People" parallel the arguments about
Corporations (not) being People for legal/regulatory/free-speech
purposes.
* Are AI artifacts tools or peers? The Valorization of fooling people
elevates the latter (to a fault) while undermining the former.
* The personhood argument confounds/conflates (for better/worse) the
same arguments around how we relate to "lesser" animals and
presumably inanimate objects (rivers, forests, oceans, the biosphere).
* As we (might) try to make AI artifacts accountable/responsible we
might be hitting a conflation with old models of human slavery and
chattelization of subgroups. e.g. Shadow/fractional-status, etc.
* And a pointed quote for the Transhumanist/Singularians among us I
understand why you might want to deny/escape/transcend this:
o /"//It’s hard being a human. You lose people you love. You
suffer and yearn. Your body breaks down. You want things — you
want people — you can’t control."/
* This last quote was followed by some pointed points about narcissism.//
* /blah blah blah, ad nauseum
/
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
