Better, yet, it seems that projects that rely on paste.bin discussions should have been using a source control repository to keep them.

People need to treat discussions as the "live" part of technical documentation (which opens another can of worms, obviously.) But, if it is not source-controlled, assume it is ephemeral, or that it doesn't exist.

This also applies to stuff we cite in Stack Overflow. It's handy to cite a finding when documenting a code change, hack, or design decision based on an answer found in SO. But for very important stuff, additional documentation must exist somewhere, preferably source-controlled.

Why should I define it when there are already textbook definitions in psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, medicine, and AI research?

This is at the root of the problem. I don't know what Dawkins was referring to. The onus is/was on him to define it before allowing himself to be quoted this way.

And if I am pushed to define, I will decline. I will simply offer the mainstream definitions in the disciplines I've already mentioned.

This. Or buy it used.

Honestly, there's no excuse to pirate stuff over BitTorrent when one can buy a book in print.

No, it won't. Yes, there are ethical and copyright issues regarding LLM training data, but this is sabotage of something that is also quite useful to society.

We need to have a conversation about the ethical and social implications of AI. This ain't it. This is just edgelord shit hurling.

Richard Dawkins has said chatbots should be considered conscious (source paywalled; alternative source) after spending two days interacting with the Claude AI engine.

I can't believe someone like Dawkins would fall for anthropomorphizing AI chatbots... unless he's using a different definition of consciousness, which is fair.

So, we have to start there: what does "being conscious" mean, for this scenario, and for Dawkins while evaluating this scenario?

Seems like a rather subjective and emotionally charged perspective. Nothing wrong with that so long as we recognize (and he recognizes) it for what it is.

With that said, this is a conversation worth having... within certain parameters (tbd)

Words detected. Useful signal missing.

I tend to agree with the spirit of such comments, but in this case, Apple makes it clear in the TOS that it retains the right to disclose that information if it deems it appropriate. People pay for an anonymity service without reading the fine print :/

No. We saw a marked decrease in crime rates, starting around the 90s (a generation after the ban on leaded gas started)

For a country of Iran's size, its economy and public services can ill-afford this type of mass disruption - This is a "soft" Doomsday Device, except it is not soft at all.

That doesn't look like an unrecoverable error, but as a data point. After all, this was an experiment, and a failure in an experiment is always a valuable data point.

As I said, citations needed. Moreover, given you opted to mention Harvard, citations needed to demonstrate that whatever you alleged happened in Harvard (if it did) is also applicable across the other entities you intend to accuse.

Pete Hegseth stares at you in Moron-lingo. Stop projecting.

No one does. That's just bs mediocre people parrot to themselves.

Citations needed.

And that was exactly Motorola's undoing, also.

Well, of course. Environmental and anti-trust regulation and workers' protection laws, and all that stuff gets in the way... and let us ignore the cost of living (which is a much larger reason why it is not economically viable to create some stuff without subsidies.)