@Paragone "I treat them reasonably, not as mere-slaves."You give them commands and the onlx real purpose they are allowed is to act upon your commands."since I can’t know if they are aware it makes moral-sense for me to presume that maybe they are,"Do you treat your toaster the same way?

Now we're applying behavioral psychology to autocomplete. How about y'all start with trying to prove your LLMs are alive since literally everything in all your silly positions take that part for granted. Do any of you have any actual evidence for this position outside of philosophical navel gazing? According to your gpt spam there basically every program ever written would qualify. So we can just disregard that nonsense.

LLMs don't have continuous processes, there's quite literally nothing there that could even feasibly be conscious. It takes a bunch of text as an input, puts it through a whole lot of predetermined calculations, then outputs text or an image or whatever.

There's no emotions, no memory, no learning. If you don't tell it something, it's inert. It can't experience suffering because it can't experience anything. It's an algorithm. It has the same claim to consciousness that WinRAR does. There's a zero percent risk it experiences anything, let alone suffering.

Honestly, a desktop running Windows or Linux for example imo has a stronger claim to consciousness than ChatGPT does. Or maybe a Mii in Tomodachi Life, those seem to be able to become "sad".

The environmental impact of AI is a much better 'vegan' reason not to use it. Although by not using it, you may in effect be "killing" it...

It's not capable of experiencing anything. Everything we're doing with ai and LLMs is no where remotely near genuine intelligence or an AGI or accounting like that. Everything we have right now is nothing more than fancy autocomplete, and it's not even particularly great at that in the first place. You have fundamental misunderstandings of the technology to cartoonish degree.

Are you normal?