This is, to say the least, deeply deeply concerning...
I don't know how the University of Zurich should respond to this, but very little should be off the table.

Quine & Rawls both appearing twice on that list seems pretty reasonable. I don't think it'd be too controversial to call them the most impactful theoretical and practical philosophers of the C20th respectively.

I'm surprised Butler's not on the list, but that might say something about the SEP.

Have you heard the Oasis cover of "I am the Walrus"? 🙂
It's amazing! It does something really quite different from the original, really stretching what the song can be in the best way!

(1) My Guitar Gently Weeps - See the Prince cover
(2) I am the Walrus - See the Oasis cover
(3) Come Together - So many covers but Aerosmith and Garry Clarke Jr are the most well known.

The best Beatles songs are marked by the fact that they're then given better covers by later artists.

It doesn't have a meaning any more beyond "high tech".
They're not saying anything false, because what they say isn't truth evaluable.

When a tech bro says "AI has the potential to X" I think all they're actually saying is "Yay technology! Let's try to do X".

Tech-talk is evidently nonsense.

I've honestly started taking a very old-school Logical Positivist approach to how tech bros talk about "AI". The term "AI" has stopped having it's classical meaning and is now just a marketing term. The same as the letter "e" in the 90s and and "smart" in the 0s.

If this "belongs to" relation is chromosomal, how does that work for individuals with Klinefelter's who have XXY chromosomes?

Really putting my tinfoil hat on, but if these people are excluded (and thereby can't get gov. documents) doesn't that violate the 14th amendment?

Similarly “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.

How does this work for someone with, say, 5-ARD?
They have XY chromosomes but can be phenotypically female.

Like what's a non-logical constant?
Maybe "but" because it has a non-truth functional part?
But if someone gave me a formal theory of "but" I wouldn't be like "That's not logic! Stop doing that!"

And I don't really know what kind of well defined formal operator would give me that reaction, either.

I know what it is to say that a sentence is logical - It's true in all models

I don't know if I mean anything so formal when I say something is a logical constant. It could just be an easy name for the constants we often use when doing logic!

Yeh to be honest the whole logicality debate has always confused me a little... I think it's one of those times where I don't really get the worry or the motivation behind it all!

I know what it is to say an inference is logical - It's valid.

But at the least my guess (and it really is a guess) is that on any reasonable definition of invariance, operators like @ will turn out to be logical iff "actuor" is logical.

φ⊨@φ
But◇φ⊭◇@φ

(Thinking about it, am I just pointing out that necessitation fails in languages with @?)

Permutation invariance for modal logics is complex to begin with. I believe, but I'm not sure, that how to handle permutation invariance when you have any kind of centring is an open question. An SEP footnote seems to agree with me!

plato.stanford.edu/entries/logi...

Yeh I think this is probably the best reply 🙂
I'm not really sure how it pans out. As I understand it, there are two main criteria for logicality going around at the moment: topic neutrality and permutation invariance.

"Actuor" is topic neutral. I don't think there's much debate to be had there.