Comment by anal_reactor
2 days ago
It sounds silly to me not because I don't value humans. I don't value humans because of my personal grievances that are difficult to defend in a serious ethical discussion. It sounds silly to me because it leaves "human" undefined. To me, the question "is LLM human?" is eerily similar to "are black people people?" and "are Jews people?". AI displays intelligence but it doesn't deserve respect because it doesn't meet certain biological requirements. Really awkward position to defend.
Instead of "humanism", where "human" is at the centre, I'd like to propose a view where loosely defined intelligence is at the centre. In pre-AI world that view was consistent with humanism because humans were the only entity that displayed advanced intelligence, with the added bonus that it explains why people tend to value complex life forms more than simple ones. When AI enters the picture, it places sufficiently advanced AI above humans. Which is fine, because AI is nothing but the next step of evolution. It's like placing "homo sapiens" above "homo erectus" except AI is "homo sapiens" and we are "homo erectus". Makes a lot of sense IMO.
Now I understand your love of LLMs. What you write reads like the output of an LLM but with the dial turned from obsequious to edgelord. There is no content, just posturing. None of what you wrote holds up to any scrutiny, and much of it is internally contradictory, but it doesn't really matter to you, I guess. I don't think you're even talking to me.
I take it as a compliment. I've always been like this. I challenged core assumptions, people didn't like it, later it would turn out I was right.