• Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Even accepting that you’re right you’ve missed the point. To the extent that animals are able to have creativity and understanding, perhaps we should understand them to be “people”.

    And at any rate, we still don’t see this kind of thing from LLMs.

    • Sas [she/her]@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      I think in a lot of ways this already happens. A lot of port parents understand their pets as people. I certainly see my cat as a person. She has her own personality that is probably fairly unique to her

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Yeah, I absolutely agree, and I really did consider saying that humans are the only *uncontroversial examples of people that we have, but I decided not to bog my comment down with too many unnecessary disclaimers. I guess I gave people too much credit there.

    • Superb
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      I missed the point on purpose, because I mostly agree with you :)

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Well if it helps I agree that you can’t actually say humans are the only people, I was simplifying to focus on the point. Maybe that was actually a mistake.