Sure that's fair. If we're returning to real-life machinery there is of course no reason to view it as a living, conscious being as it quite simply is not. I found the case of Data more compelling to discuss as there is no meaningful discussion to be had on real-world "AI" in this regard in my opinion (there is a reason I keep putting "AI" between quotes). As for your example of animals, I don't see the lack of logic there. It would be even more odd to believe that they lack our capacity to feel. Faking outward emotion without the interior processes would be energy-expensive theater.I was talking now as much as any hypothetical, showing studies where people are developing emotional attachments to machines NOW. It will only get worse. Referencing Data was just making a smart-assed point, his "death" if even death it could be called, wouldn't mean much of anything except the destruction of a really useful tool to me.
On the flip side of this, for me, I admit to great sadness on the death of animals... more so than with most humans for some reason. Illogical, but true.
And Devor's point is solid, bioengineering is likely even scarier. But hey! Dystopian fears are a powerful magnet for human brains.
Anyways, I'm veering way off topic there. Back to ChatGPT, it is as conscious as my coffee mug I reckon.
Last edited: