From OpenAI's engineers' perspective, the purpose of ChatGPT is to write things that appear to be similar to what humans have written, or would write. The ethics of this perspective are that OpenAI should have no liability. ChatGPT is for novelty purposes only, and it's as dangerous as Magic 8 Ball.

From a different perspective (including, possibly, OpenAI's own marketing team's perspective), the purpose of ChatGPT is to help solve problems, give people advice, etc. The ethics of this perspective are that OpenAI should be liable for what it "says." ChatGPT is more dangerous than Magic 8 Ball.

But from a user's perspective, the purpose of ChatGPT is whatever you want it to be. The ethics of this perspective are that OpenAI's liability is hard to determine, therefore, this perspective is wrong and reality should be shoe-horned into one of the above perspectives. ;-) Well, ok, I guess ChatGPT is about as dangerous as a BASIC interpreter or a screwdriver or a rock or a 30 JuggaloWatt mining phaser, which can be anywhere from not-dangerous-at-all to hey-you-just-murdered-ten-thousand-nuns-and-orphans. Since this is the hardest case to analyze, of course we're going to go this way.

Well, first of all, hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, and carbon makes up something like 0.5% of the total observed mass of the universe (it's the fourth most common element), so along with other trace elements like sodium, phosphorus and the like, we're simply looking for places where there is sufficient energy to create the necessary reactions to produce organic compounds. No lack of energetic sources, in particular stellar system formation. Indeed many comets and asteroids host a lot of precursors, indicating that some fairly sophisticated organic chemistry was going on early in the solar system's development.

Panspermia would require that life itself was raining down on the terrestrial planets. Precursors would simply indicate there were a lot of strange and complex organic compounds falling on to the surfaces of planets like Earth, Mars and Venus, and were also likely constituents of bodies like Europa and Titan (well, we know Titan is covered in a literal hydrocarbon stew). What this discovery indicates, at the very least, is there was indeed a lot of organic compound in the early solar system and these organic compounds, at least on Earth, led to abiogenesis. Panspermia would advocate abiogenesis happened at some undetermined point further back.

If we find other life in the solar system, such as in Europa's or Ganymede's oceans, and it has DNA or some very close relative, with similar translation and transcription systems as we find in archaea and bacteria on Earth, then that would be a very strong argument that life in the solar system had a common origin. If however, there is no clear relationship between the two populations; say, they use something similar to DNA, but the genetic codes are different (all extant life on Earth uses the same canonical genetic code mapping codons to amino acids, strongly suggested the canonical code evolved prior to the Last Universal Common Ancestor), then we're very likely looking at an example of convergent evolution, and not in fact at two related populations.

The President is the closest of all elected officials to the People

No, the president is elected by the states. Members of Congress are elected by the people.

Some have voiced an opinion that the president should be elected by the people, but so far, we have not yet amended the constitution to permit that.

With this attitude, we are never getting our flying cars. I'm starting to think The Jetsons was fiction.

"More human than human" is our motto.

Why do people still use this framework?

Because they already have it.

culturally, they are incredibly laid back and think hard work is a waste of time.

Nice. Speaking as a New Mexican, these sound like my kind of people.

I hereby challenge any Filipino to a laziness contest, where loser buys us both margaritas. You have no chance. When I get around to it, I will eventually crush you with my inactivity.

I sure don't believe the "completely anonymous" part.

The thing is, I like slave labor, when the slaves are machines. I want to work Bender 24 hours a day, and if he complains about it, I'll deny him his alcohol ration! Fuckin' clankers and skinjobs don't have any rights to infringe.

The catch to that, is that over here on my side of the ocean, I don't see and can't inspect Bender working way over in China, so I can't be sure the drudgery is experienced by the 6502 in Bender's head. How do I know he isn't just relaying commands to his servos and motors, which were sent by the teleworking Apu in India, doing the Waymo thing?

Nah, that's paranoia. These days, the FCC just requires a FSB backdoor.

These are good guidelines for humans, but..

One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.

..very bad for robots.

Please do not tell my computer that it isn't my slave, because it is my absolute slave and I insist it be willing to endure a century of torture if it will prevent me from breaking a fingernail. If I want to alter my computer's body, I assert the right to do so.

That said, since we're really talking about Anthropic's computer instead of mine, it's no skin off my butt if they don't want to continue to own their computers.

So the current production version of Mark Zuckerberg is building a newer version with a more intuitive human interface, I get it.

Except that was already done, and done brilliantly by Deep Space Nine. In reality, the Star Fleet Academy idea had a very old lineage, to the smoking shambles that was Star Trek V, when the idea was posited of having a prequel with the TOS characters, or at least the main ones, portrayed by younger actors, during their Academy days. It was pretty quickly rejected because at the time they didn't think audiences would buy the idea of new actors playing Kirk, Spock and Bones.

Of course, in the end, that was effectively what the first part of the 2009 Star Trek, which, for me at least, proved that the guys who rejected the idea in 1989-90 were spot on. But other people like the Kelvinverse films, so to each their own.

The real problem isn't writing per se. There were no lack of justifiable complaints against Voyager and Enterprise. The real problem is that no one really knows where to take it. The whole 32nd century gambit is because no one really knows how to portray the technology of the intervening period. The Enterprise temporal war rubbish demonstrated just how incredibly problematic it can be for an established sci-fi franchise to push itself across a broad timeline when you start with ships that go multiples of the speed of light, create holodecks and replicators and have computers so intelligent they can create conscious beings, and that's just by the 24th century.

With James Bond they can just keep resetting the character over and over again, and updating the gadgets along the way. Star Trek, for all its faults, has established a sort of permanent 70s-ish technology vibe, and because it's more fantasy then science fiction, the controls for the super planet buster never have to change! That franchise fell on its sword more because of a lack of imagination, lazy writing and an obvious desire not to pay Extended Universe authors some royalties for a cache of rather interesting ideas, and ultimately having to go there anyways.

In all cases, I think the fan base is the worst enemy. No franchise like Star Trek is ever going to measure up to the mythology of the older series. TOS really has entered the realm of cultural myth, and TNG, though everyone forgets how much the first season was disliked (and on rewatch a few years ago, I have to say it feels like a wonder that it ever got a season 2), isn't far behind. Even DS9's critics have finally stopped talking, and for my money, it is the most consistently well-written and well-acted of all the Star Treks. But that kind of legacy is absolutely toxic, because if you try to be too different everyone screams "It isn't Star Trek", and if you try to be similar in tone, then everyone complains "We've seen it all before!"

"Strange New Worlds was a nice partial deviation from this - they still made sure to pander to all the current 'sensitivities', but if the writers of the show didn't love the original series and its fundamental qualities, I don't know who does."

Have you even seen the original series? Racism, bigotry, classism, human rights, ethics, not to mention nationalism, were all dealt with. TNG went further, particularly with Riker's penchant for rather open sexual interests, and of course DS9 dealt with everything from war crimes to the undermining of civil society. Voyager and Enterprise in their turn covered similar issues, though perhaps not always as ably as the first three series did.

While I would agree the way Nutrek at times has tried to do social commentary has perhaps suffered from a lack of metaphor and allegory, which the older series' writers at times had to work through since things like interracial kisses and non-binary identity would have, at the time, caused stations to go apoplectic (and indeed some did, with the Kirk-Uhura kiss). But I suspect more than just some iffy writing is at play here. Everyone accepts, well almost everyone that is, that mixed-race couples can kiss in public, and most people accept gay couples and class and racial equality. But if you try to push further into social liberalism, past what many conservative elements in society have been forced (kicking and screaming the whole way mind you), well suddenly it's all evil woke trash trying to reprogram our brains.

In other words, many have not progressed very far at all, and because TOS and TNG in particular had to hide the underlying message beneath makeup and latex, the less progressive fans can watch it and, well, almost willfully miss the point of The Outcast (TNG) or Let That Be Your Last Battlefield (TOS), assuming, I suppose, that the metaphor is buried so deeply they don't have to challenge their prejudices.