Rent hikes will be concrete shoes everyone has to wear. And the moment the housing market crashes, companies will swoop in to buy the real estate before anyone else can.

It's gonna be a shitshow :[

I can see why it's been coded like this though. Offensive jokes will get screenshotted and a twitter mob will be called to arms. There's probably quite a lot of people fishing specifically for that already, looking for the next viral outrage screenshot they can get.

AI art already got the pitchfork and torches, ChatGPT is on thin ice just by being an AI. It's better to be safe around the extremists and avoid giving them any fuel to use until the tech's got more widespread approval.

I'm a little impressed at how I show it's literally a logical fallacy to think "I can't be wrong because my argument has convinced myself." And your response is: "My argument has convinced myself, so it's a waste of time to consider alternate arguments."

RNA and DNA work on similar rulesets and determination. If you look at the base point of what makes cells function, you'll find plenty of similarities to mechanical true/false - if/else logic at the bottom of the pole. Everything ends up being math.

We wouldn't consider them conscious, but they are organic. A variation of all these rule-abiding proteins and microorganisms eventually evolved into us.

Thus because machines follow a line of rules right now, there exists a possibility that they build on this until it's complex enough to form an artificial lifeform with consciousness, in the same way we did.

That said, I think it's a lost cause to argue with you. You aren't even able to do the basics of debate, even when it's directly pointed out.

> I'm not wrong with assumptions. That's not an assumption anyways.

https://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

This is literally the very first logical fallacy people run into: I'm right, and I am unable to entertain the notion that I could be wrong.

The point of logical reasoning is to be able to take assumptions you do not believe in, and examine them starting from both sides - A serious attempt, not some pretend strawman. Once you have the full fallout of both sides, right or wrong, you can compare them.

Besides, the very fact that other people don't agree with your assumption in the first place shows you there's something more to it that you're not seeing or that they're not seeing. Whatever logic convinced you, it didn't convince others intuitively. From here, your question should be "Am I the strange one, or are they?" Instead, it seems more like you simply write other people off.

Start from the assumption that you're wrong and explore from that root downwards. It doesn't matter how you're wrong in this case, it's hypothetical. For example, some divinity shows up and tells the world outright that consciousness is a pattern, and computers are able to generate this pattern the same way we are. Or any number of reasons that you can't refute, make up your own if you want. We're interested in the fallout from that branch of logic.

If you're right and computers never gain true sentience, what's lost by being ethical to them? It'd be like saying Please and Thank you to Alexa or Siri. Meaningless gesture, but harmless overall.

But on the other hand, what if you're wrong with that assumption?

The problem comes when you think it's a robot that can't be conscious, while it's telling you it is.

How are you going to differentiate a printf("I'm alive") vs "I'm actually alive you dick."