Literally just mainlining marketing material straight into whatever’s left of their rotting brains.

  • Saeculum [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    1 year ago

    By that way of reasoning, the replicates aren't people because they are characters written by the author same as any other.

    They are as much fiction as sentient machines are science fiction.

    • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      ok sure my point was the authors aren't making a point about the nature of machines informed by the limits of machines and aren't qualified to do so

      saying AI is people because of Data from star trek is like saying there are aliens because you saw a Vulcan on tv in terms of relevance

      • Saeculum [he/him, comrade/them]
        ·
        1 year ago

        That's fair, though taking the idea that AI is people because of Data from Star Trek isn't inherently absurd. If a machine existed that demonstrated all the capabilities and external phenomena as Data in real life, I would want it treated as a person.

        The authors might be delusional about the capabilities of their machine in particular, but in different physical circumstances to what's most likely happening here, they wouldn't be wrong.

        • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sorry to respond to this several day old comment, but I think there were quite a few episodes where Data's personhood was directly called into question, it is a tangential point, but I think it is likely that even if we had a robotic Brent Spiner running around, people might still not be 100% convinced that they are truly sapient, and might consider it an incredibly complex mechanical Turk style trick. It really is hard to tell for sure, even if we did have a "living" AI to examine.