Raw LLM Responses

>I don’t think that undermines the substance, but I understand why it gives some readers pause. Thanks for the reply! It's good to know you're willing to work towards resolving the issues, which is where the only concern about using (eg.) Claude would come in, where it's easier to make arguments than review them for the sake of creating or defending theories. And, certainly, we don't want one person's use of AI to preclude other peoples' participation over the dialectics, or dissuade experienced philosophers from dispensing council and guidance in return. However, just to say, you should consider that some people may effectively regard AI as a weapon, even if your intent is to not/never use it anything close to that vein. It's usually technology that acts on philosophy rather than philosophy acting on technology; theoretically that puts you in a minority, at the least - proceed with caution accordingly. >the essay’s examples (robot, sparkle, Shoggoth) aren’t meant as an exhaustive taxonomy of AI representation It's more about creating an effective scope of concepts than being completely deductive. AI as a suspect agent relies on some mechanical definition, so there should be a polling of the most serious candidates to contain agency. Moreover, at the least not *all* forms of AI are even worth considering having the potential for agency. Some will be easier to rule out than others, but what remains should be as challenging to your and everyone else's ideas as possible, even if all imaginable candidates may be inevitably ruled out later. In the meantime, we at least need to cut the Gordian knot purely within the realms, or at the point of code and software, alone, unless hardware concerns are ruled back in, ie. with quantum technology. >the position that all cognitively typical adult humans possess agency is about as close to consensus as the field gets. And, the word "adult" *begs the question*, "what is an agent?" These are identical problems, and subs