Quick Introduction We have all been on forums, chats, reddit, discord, youtube, or somewhere and heard “Oh! Model XYZ is AMAZEBALLZ!zomgwtfbbq” then downloaded it (or more likely, some quantized form of it) and said “eww… This sucks!” This post is going to be a rather technical series of experiments to demonstrate the impact of implementation-specific hazards with inference. I will be using the term “reference implementation” to describe the lab that published and offers first-party hosting of ...
Ah, so you’ve experienced each of their existences? Fascinating.
Please explain to me how a wristwatch is sentient or conscious.
I can’t, since I’ve never been a wristwatch. Maybe they’re not, or maybe they are through a mechanism for which science has no current explanation. We can’t know, only surmise.
Okay, then you’re not actually engaging in any degree of coherence. Your ignorance is not wisdom, despite what you seem to have convinced yourself.
That’s some impressive hubris you’ve got.
So tell me, in your infinite wisdom, from where does sentience arise and what is the smallest organism that is sentient?
No, I don’t think I will. Because I don’t believe there is any answer I can give you that won’t be merry with more insults and arrogance. I made the claim that sentience cannot exist in a purely mechanistic system, like a wrist watch. Because there is nothing there unexplained, unknown, or more nuanced than gears and springs.
The burden of proof lies on you to explain how a wristwatch could have any degree of sentience. And insulting me does nothing but show the emptiness of your claim, and the fragility of your pseudo-wisdom.
Denying ALL knowledge by taking a bong rip and saying “But how can we ever really know?” It’s not wisdom or humility. It’s pretending ignorance is wisdom.
You seem to have this backwards. YOU’RE the one making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you. I’m saying it’s impossible to know, you are saying you know without a doubt. Prove it.