cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/3613920
Get fuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked
“This isn’t going to stop,” Allen told the New York Times. “Art is dead, dude. It’s over. A.I. won. Humans lost.”
“But I still want to get paid for it.”
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/3613920
Get fuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked
“This isn’t going to stop,” Allen told the New York Times. “Art is dead, dude. It’s over. A.I. won. Humans lost.”
“But I still want to get paid for it.”
Then “drag” (whoever that is) anthropomorphises a statistical model, which is stupid.
Drag does not anthropomorphise anything! Drag resents that accusation. Drag has spoken with many otherkin who are entirely inhuman and still deserving of love and respect. Drag treats AI like those. Not like a human.
it’s still antropomorphisation.
Cool for drag. Mind if other people don’t give a crap about what drag thinks?
Drag thinks that if your opinion is that treating things like otherkin is anthropomorphisation, then you must be anthropomorphising otherkin.
It’s not any kind of “kin”. It’s a statistical model. It’s about as sentient as a Gaussian blur is.
You are a statistical model, and drag does not go around telling people you are not sentient.
Does drag have proof that the other user is a statistical model, or is drag guilty of dehumanizing others to fit drag’s agenda just like a Nazi would?
A human is a kind of statistical model, so drag’s comment does not imply any specific amount of humanity, either small or large.
[Citation needed.]
No I am not. Different onthological entities, donkey.
Drag chooses to respect your identity as a non-statistical model. Drag’s opinions are not as important as the way you feel, and drag will make an effort to avoid upsetting you by referring to you in the wrong way.
This is not about identification. I am a human (which is not a social construct) which exists in the real world. Statistical models don’t exist in an onthological sense.