You can’t persuade those people, before these bots they were picking a random Facebook post over a person they know, because they didn’t want to be taking advice from that person, but random posts (except God forbid Wikipedia, because they say it can be unreliable ; that can’t happen to a random Facebook post you agree with, that’s the real shit), and now these bots conveniently give them answers they are looking for, confirmed by high authority of some faceless company (anything is better than the authority of a person you meet who’s more knowledgeable), for every kind of situation.
And yes, they are trying to hide it thinking that’s smart and they are avoiding conflicts with inadequate people who can’t be reasoned with on all the important topics, that a text generator will seamlessly evolve into a race of robots helping them, that communist theocracy is the best system of government, that there’s a world government controlling us via vaccines and all such very nuanced and perceptive takes.
Hence the “language policing” complaint, that person is trying to weasel themselves out of answering that yes, they think their computer is sentient, without arguments.
They do think that their computer can think and converse, but they know that that position is untenable when examined beyond the scope of their emotional reasoning.
Well, OK, but you haven’t answered whether you believe into the “spontaneous evolution of intelligence in a text approximator” thing.
I understand if that’s because of some stubbornness and desire for correctness of the conversation, but people believing in that are a problem not less than antivaxxers.
Your right. I haven’t accepted your contrived framing that you are using to exploit the human tendencies of groupthink and group shame to change my language.
No you are. That’s what that is.
I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here but you’re not making it easy
You can’t persuade those people, before these bots they were picking a random Facebook post over a person they know, because they didn’t want to be taking advice from that person, but random posts (except God forbid Wikipedia, because they say it can be unreliable ; that can’t happen to a random Facebook post you agree with, that’s the real shit), and now these bots conveniently give them answers they are looking for, confirmed by high authority of some faceless company (anything is better than the authority of a person you meet who’s more knowledgeable), for every kind of situation.
And yes, they are trying to hide it thinking that’s smart and they are avoiding conflicts with inadequate people who can’t be reasoned with on all the important topics, that a text generator will seamlessly evolve into a race of robots helping them, that communist theocracy is the best system of government, that there’s a world government controlling us via vaccines and all such very nuanced and perceptive takes.
Hence the “language policing” complaint, that person is trying to weasel themselves out of answering that yes, they think their computer is sentient, without arguments.
That was also how I read their response, lmao
They do think that their computer can think and converse, but they know that that position is untenable when examined beyond the scope of their emotional reasoning.
The desire to control how others use language is a reactionary tendency.
Well, OK, but you haven’t answered whether you believe into the “spontaneous evolution of intelligence in a text approximator” thing.
I understand if that’s because of some stubbornness and desire for correctness of the conversation, but people believing in that are a problem not less than antivaxxers.
I think his response meets the threshold of tacit admission
Your right. I haven’t accepted your contrived framing that you are using to exploit the human tendencies of groupthink and group shame to change my language.