Correct. Instead of focusing on the amazing things AI technologies can already do and the societal transformations that are already resulting, all we get from the SV Doomers and accelerationists is wild hype about speculative #ASI and #AGI utopias that don't bear any relation to reality at all.

The Neanderthal genetic absorption hypothesis is an interesting idea and possibly at least partially true but may be ultimately unprovable.

They don't and they can't but the problem is that people don't stop to explain why those terms don't refer to anything real and are just marketing hype for AI. AI is powerful enough as it is. It doesn't need "AGI" or "super-intelligence" to change everyone's life in profound ways. It already has.

However, the differences are observed on average and one shouldn't forget that the cultural differences themselves can arise from biological differences so this dilemma can never be definitively resolved. We cannot escape the fact that every culture is ultimately an interpretation of biology.

Lindquist also nicely illustrates the difficulties of separating nature from nurture as a causal explanation for career preference differences between males and females given the virtual impossiblity of separating the effects of socialization from the effects of biological differences.

obscures what she is trying to clarify. The fact is that subjectivity is fundamental to all living beings & every perspective whether scientific, perspectival or mystical. You cannot escape or evade subjectivity. It is always there. Like the uncertainty principle, subjectivity is universal.

phenomena that can be relied on to provide
realism. This is clearly suspect as one cannot create objective reality by agreement or a show of hands. This approach also gets bogged down in jargon like "natural kinds" and "robust modal phenomena." I don't find this kind of jargon helpful. In fact, it

is possible you cannot assume it.

Science must first prove machine consciousness is possible or that it exists somewhere. One can't simply assume from a belief in "physicalism" that machine consciousness is possible, one must show the mechanism for it. We cannot do that yet, so we can't assume that machine #consciousness is coming.

So the burden of proving the existence of "unconscious animals" is on science itself. Machines are a different story. We've no examples of conscious machines, just as we have no proven examples of "unconscious animals". Thus @hakwan.bsky.social has it backwards.

Human beings are complex systems with emergent properties that lead to different subjective experience in every being. We know that humans are conscious & we have no theory as to how they could not be conscious. Without imposing a double standard, we must assume that other animals are conscious.

People & animals are only incentivized by things they care about personally or culturally. You won't train a dog or a seal by offering it a cell phone. Humans on average are incentivized by social recognition. If they weren't, charities would go out of business. Money works for many but not all.

pontificates examples of violence as good or bad solely based on his own personal opinion and values that he never explicates or shares. This shows why dividing violence into good violence and bad violence is pointless. If someone dislikes an instance of violence it's bad. If he likes it, it's good.

pulls them straight from his bum. McMahan whose PhD thesis was supervised by Bernard Williams (who was wary of claims for universal morality) should know better. McMahan is completely flummoxed by Ricardo's mention of OnlyFans. McMahan, a naive Southerner, unable to pronounce the word "advocacy,"

We do things based on ideology, mental illness, stupid mistakes or values that may reflect a complete disinterest in economic factors. Because humans are complex systems too and complexity science teaches us that, as with the weather, unpredictable behaviors you never dreamed of are always emerging.

authority as though they could predict the future.
Ideas like “class struggle” don’t remotely capture how economic systems work.

Rosenberg thinks game theory can help but humans often don’t act in their economic interest. We instead act based on our own subjectively perceived personal interests.