this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
77 points (100.0% liked)

Slop.

797 readers
435 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“Suppose you have a model that assigns itself a 72 percent chance of being conscious,” Douthat began. “Would you believe it?”

Amodei called it a “really hard” question to answer, but hesitated to give a yes or no answer.

Be nice to the stochastic parrots, folks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WhatDoYouMeanPodcast@hexbear.net 16 points 4 days ago (14 children)

This is dumb. I doubt anyone here is going to disagree that it's dumb.

I think an interesting question, if only to use your philosophy muscles, is to ask what happens if something is effectively conscious. What if it could tell you that a cup is upside down when you say the top is sealed and the bottom is open? It can draw a clock. What if you know it's not "life as we know it" but is otherwise indistinguishable? Does it get moral and ethical considerations? What are you doing in Detroit: Become Human?

[–] CarmineCatboy2@hexbear.net 8 points 4 days ago (9 children)

Or, to be more relatable: does something have to be conscious to be your significant other?

Obviously not or else Robin-Chwan and my relationship would be weird and cringe and I'm neither cringe nor owned

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)