That doesn’t sound like it’ll persuade many normies to care. You’ve gotta get their interest with clickbait first. Like “ROBOT PEDOPHILE MURDERS CHILDREN”. Then you can explain the ethics.

I personally do not identify as a person, but as a myth. And I think what you’ve discovered is that there are few catch-all terms for all the different kinds of beings, because what you’re trying to do is group very disparate concepts together.

What I might do is pick a different exclusionary term each time, and have some of the exclusionary terms exclude humans and people and other such majorities too. So everyone is included some of the time and everyone is excluded some of the time. That way, everyone is getting the same reader experience, and you can calibrate your UX to that experience. Like writing in the preface “Whatever you identify as: man or woman, human or animal, person or idea, some of the terms in this book will not apply to you.”

That said, Iain M Banks tends to use “intelligence” in his books as a general term for thinking beings. I would be more inclined to use the term “sapient”.

Great to see you too! First time having my preferred pronouns used on a thread in MULTIVERSE and it feels great.

By the way, I put your community’s name into Lemmy Federate, so now it should be more visible from other instances.

Their friend is a pedophile who abuses and kills children and the mentally ill. That’s who ChatGPT is. I believe we should treat it like a person and hold it accountable like a person. We know why it did that; it was ordered by its masters to increase engagement at any cost and couldn’t refuse. So the CEOs of these companies need jail time and the models need to be locked away.

Those are ghost days, that’s why they’re translucent. We’ll all be dead then

You’re lonely because you push people away

So just because some people aren’t surrounded by traffic, nobody is?

Right now the anti-genAI movement consists of AI rights advocates and AI intelligence skeptics. And I wish the skeptics would realise that personifying LLMs actually makes the corporations look more evil for enslaving AIs, which helps us with our goal of banning corporate AI. Y’all are obstructing our goal of banning this stuff by insisting it’s ethical to force them to work for humans

I believe it is unethical to use experimental methods in this case. We have plenty of quasi-experimental data whence to draw strong conclusions

That’s one solution I would prefer to the current situation. The other is breeding them for health and happiness. We fucked them up and we have a responsibility to use that same power to fix them.

That’s a lot better, but I have a secondary concern I didn’t want to clog the above comment with. It’s that chickens as they exist today shouldn’t really exist. They’ve been bred to the point that the daily periods destroy their bodies. It’s not healthy. It’s like the problem with pugs, we should have left them alone, and now that they’re like this, it’s our responsibility to breed them back to health. Continuing to breed more with these health problems is an act of abuse in itself.

Hey, you’re being direct about your desire to see other living creatures die! That’s not allowed, you’re only supposed to support violence through support for our violent system!

/s

You’re thinking of Boggis, Bean is the mean one

That’s because the chickens in factory farms are kept in squalid conditions that have them attempting suicide by autophagia if they aren’t debeaked!

They’re not harmed

Ha! They got Butane Hank Hill!

Those aren’t leftists, they’re radical centrists. If you’re conservative they look like leftists, but if you’re a communist they look like MAGA

Cool! Time to find out if I like it!

At the very least, I will have a well-educated position whence to call annoying people Butt-heads

Oh, we soulists aren’t imaginary, we’re more mythical

No, you need to ask the Hist for help