And RMS once trolled the fuck out of me and Mike Gallaher, who I worked with on Gosling's UniPress …

> Why don't you directly engage the points in my other post like I just asked you to? Why would I? You've been talking about something completely orthogonal to what I was saying. > I don't need you to lecture me on sealioning Uhm. I mean. With the context given.. you're.. kinda maybe doing something very similar to that context? Doesn't really feel like good faith at least. __ Oh I came up with a cheap shot. I'm sorry but I have to put it here. Your barking orders of submission at me kinda.. smells like AI interactions. A lot of those. (I genuinely believe that it does, but it's also clearly inflammatory, lol)

Okay, but, fair enough, now that you're here (and you're a person with a name and history attached to it), it's less of a waste of time to ponder this. So personally, I'm not really interested in the hypotheticals of emergent behavior and all that and whether something without memory that works as ours does could develop some different but practically identical form of sentience. That is possible, but at the end of that hypothetical chain of thoughts might be an outcome in which the human is not the top of the food chain anymore. Which is not to be understood as "oh god, I am full of fear of being obsolete", but "why would I even just spend a second on something that leads to the obsolescence of my kind". The definition of sentience I believe we must use is one of skin in the game. Only what is bound by the same constraints as we are (mortality, disease, physical presence) may be treated…