> I don't care if AI is more interesting than a human. I want a human, because I am human. I am not transhumanist.
I think I understand your point but I'd like to give a counterpoint: replace "human" by "white human" and "AI" by "black human" and you might see how that line of reasoning is flawed.
In other words, there might come a time when AIs could become really offended if you'd exclude them like that from social interactions, with all the repercussions that might have.
> I wonder what the correlation is between people who see no particular value in interacting with humans, and people who struggle to interact with humans.
I see value in interacting with humans, especially at this point in time, and especially in ways that machines can't (e.g. having meaningful intimate relationships, raising a family, etc). Even then, machines could theoretically do some of this better than humans, as suggested by a lot of sci-fi content (except the actual reproducing part).
But I also see value in interacting with beings that are superior to humans, assuming they are able to do what humans can, only better.
I am a human supremacist, yes.
Further, it is not unreasonable to have more interest in some cultures than others, or find the experiences of ones own culture more engaging or relevant to oneself than another. The "line of immorality" comes with banning or violently oppressing other experiences.
Again, fundamentally, I disagree with an analogy giving AI equal morality or agency to a homo sapiens. There is no room for "find replace" here.
Agreed.
> Again, fundamentally, I disagree with an analogy giving AI equal morality or agency to a homo sapiens.
I understand your view. But I also think this viewpoint will age badly. Maybe not on our lifetimes, but I increasingly believe that will happen in less than one generation.
To me internet comments are almost on life support. Im curious if HN will have the same fate
> To me internet comments are almost on life support. Im curious if HN will have the same fate
I think I agree, in general.
I wonder what incentives someone could have for posting such comments on HN. I mean, it's clear that commercial products could benefit immensely from that (as they'd get a return on their investment), and also e.g. governments and political parties who might want to influence the public discourse about sensitive/political matters.
But why would anyone (who is not toxic already) use such a bot to post comments about technical topics, such as in discussions about programming languages, interesting bugs being discovered, open-source software being released, etc?
To sway, to amplify, to manipulate, to pollute with noise, etcetera. I think these type of actors have more tools at their fingertips now than ever.
AI-generated content can be fascinating, helpful, and in some instances, more useful and accurate than humans (medical diagnosis, technical documentation, perhaps). But if I ask for a human, I want a human.
I don't care if AI is more interesting than a human. I want a human, because I am human. I am not transhumanist.
I wonder what the correlation is between people who see no particular value in interacting with humans, and people who struggle to interact with humans.