I believe what you say. I don’t believe that is what the article is saying.

I’m not attacking philosophical arguments between the 1950s and the 1980s.

I’m pointing out that the claim that consciousness must form inside a fleshy body is not supported by any evidence.

The philosopher has made an unproven assumption. An erroneously logical leap. Something an academic shouldn’t do.

Just because everything we currently consider conscious has a physical presence, does not imply that consciousness requires a physical body.

It’s hard to see that books argument from the Wikipedia entry, but I don’t see it arguing that intelligence needs to have senses, flesh, nerves, pain and pleasure.

It’s just saying computer algorithms are not what humans use for consciousness. Which seems a reasonable conclusion. It doesn’t imply computers can’t gain consciousness, or that they need flesh and senses to do so.

So why is a real “thinking” AI likely impossible? Because it’s bodiless. It has no senses, no flesh, no nerves, no pain, no pleasure.

This is not a good argument.

But if you turn it back on the conscious doesn’t return. Electricity is the energy conscious runs on, but it’s not consciousness.

Hang on. I’ve seen that tattoo!

That’s what someone who doesn’t understand magic would say.

Follow the spell incorrectly and that is indeed all you would get.

Who the hell sticks a bumper sticker anywhere but the bumper?

Can’t proved they have been deleted and can’t prove you don’t have more.

Problem created.

The dob credential could verified and issued by anyone. But you may have more confidence in a government signature than a private company or known individual.

Zero Knowledge is more secure. Government signs a credential confirming date of birth and gives that to the citizen.

Citizen can then use that to create a proof they were born before date X. Verifier only sees the proof and the Government signature.

No need to trust 3rd party websites.

I want a quake rated home, which must be wood.

This isn’t true in Japan.

But, corporations are allowed to buy books normally and use them in training.

This judgment is implying that meta broke the law.

Or, If a legal copy of the book is owned then it can be used for AI training.

The court is saying that no special AI book license is needed.

This is a valid athletic technique. Usually achieved by training at altitude.

I’ve watched some mildly amusing Yeti campfire tutorials that were AI generated.

E.g. https://youtube.com/shorts/H2M0rSW9jhk

There were 8, but sorrow got rolled into sloth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins

I didn’t claim Tesla has solved this automation problem.

Waymo is closer to human levels, but not yet considerably better.