So here I am, chilling and ready to put on some this artificial life while I draw when my jaw just about drops to the floor less than 30 seconds into this video when the guest Falco Schaefer (no, sadly not that Falco) drops these wacky words:
"beneath 'i think therefore I am' lies something darker: I think and others dont think properly. Therefore I am and others are not. They lack being, are dispensible."
Which was enough to raise eyebrows in and of itself, if she hadn't followed it up with:
"I'm not saying AI is definetly conscious. I'm saying the question itself is colonial. The test is rigged.
All of this naturally strikes me as very odd, but I have to admit I'm a little intrigued
Now I am no descartes expert, but im pretty sure the whole cogito ergo sum thing by definion only applies to yourself because well that's the whole point right. So how is this individual claiming that it is somehow relevant to ai? and Manning doesn't seem to dispute this at all? Obviously i'm sceptical but i've gotta see where theyre coming from. Thankfully the video links their github, and specifically this (which i am not convinced claude isn't doing most of the lifting on) on the supposed background influencing Decartes' definition of 'cogito' which is pretty central to this whole thing