Just prompt them back: "that's a lot of detail, could you please summarise as briefly as possible what differences concern our requirements specifically?"
I think people focus a lot on the dangers of erasing consciousness as a moral entity, but it strikes me that something which is so loosely defined and for all intents and purposes unfalsifiable carries its own dangers too. Especially given so many of us are happy to kill and eat many creatures that pass many proposed tests of consciousness.
It's probably sensible to use more strongly defined terms like humanity, self-awareness, cognitive capability, empathy and so on. And to treat them somewhat separately rather than trying to bundle it all together.
But people want there to be something special about us which can be defined as something separate from us, in a neutral, universalist sounding way which also happens to be relatively exclusive - I think because there's this desire to make the concept of a soul have an equivalent in scientific realism for the purposes of discussing philosophy in a secular way.
> and then leaving the civil service to become... an AWS employee.
Today in things that the press isn't legally allowed to describe as corrupt but would probably reach the intuitive threshold for corruption for most people who this is explained to.
I mean it's not clear the current state of things was the ambition before the war, a while back they were talking about seizing Kharg island which indicates capturing oil resources was an objective
No - it indicates gross incompetence of the people in charge of the war and its communication.
Any media worth its salt spend a brief time explaining why invading Kharg would mean mass US casualties, while having no critical objectives only achievable by seizing Kharg.
If one of your media sources only echoed "reports of the US looking to seize Kharg island" without that context it was wasting your time for attention.
The oil is a secondary objective to keep markets stable so there’s less dissent domestically, the primary objective is to weaken Iran so that Israel can continue their expansion in the Middle East with less resistance. Their goal for decades now has been to become a world power like the US, Russia, and China and they manipulate US foreign policy to achieve these aims. This isn’t even a secret, you could read the Clean Break memo or read Israeli news where they talk about this somewhat openly.
The war will continue at least up to elections, maybe longer since Zionism has bipartisan support in the US, but they’ll at least have to change the messaging or approach somehow. These ceasefire negotiations are a farce and will invariably fall through. The US will get no benefits and the spin will be how incompetent the Trump administration is for creating another quagmire but there was never anything for the US to gain from this and the real objective of exhausting the US military resources to undermine Iran will have been achieved. They ideally would still like to install the descendant of the last Shah as the new prime minister, but if that can’t be accomplished they’ll just reset the Iranian civilization back 20 years by destroying infrastructure, oil fields, and killing influential and popular leaders.
The only redeeming factor of the Trump admin is that they are genuinely incompetent so this hidden hand influencing our foreign policy is more apparent but they’re not so incompetent to have started a war they have nothing to gain from.
They may well do but in practice if you want to embody the hacker spirit, the best thing is to hack rather than trying to get some clearly inadequate local LLM to do it.
reply