Raw LLM Responses

I'll preface this with this statement: I don't think Humans are all that special. Now, let me elaborate. When people talk about "this is a Human activity" or "these are Human emotions" or "this is Human intelligence", they're referring to actions or qualities of a single species of animal; Homo Sapiens. Us, Humans. But what's so special about Human art? If an Elephant can learn to paint, is that not "art" merely because it wasn't created by a Human? Are cave paintings dozens of thousands of years ago not art merely because they were created by Neanderthals and not Homo Sapiens? If, rather than merely Humans being the dominant species on Earth, we had a co-sapient species here with us, would we distinguish between Art made by us vs "pictures" created by that secondary species? If we discovered intelligent life on other planets, would we declare that those aliens cannot create art merely because they're not the correct species? Too many Humans put far too much weight and significance on their species and don't consider that we may not necessarily have a monopoly on those qualities we value so much. Rather than valuing art merely because it was "made by Humans", I'd rather value art because it was "made by a Person". And I do make a meaningful distinction between the two terms. Human is a single species. It's a term of exclusion; our species and nothing else. But Person is a term of _inclusion;_ those who can act and understand equivalent to us. When it comes to consciousness, sentience, sapience, emotion, empathy, creativity, etc.; I believe these qualities exist on a spectrum or gradient. Not every Human is as emotional, creative, or empathetic as every other Human. Before a certain developmental age, can a Human even be considered "conscious"? Consider a 1 year old. Do *you* have any memories from when you were one year old? When is your _earliest_ memory? Is that when "you" begin; your conscious existence? Are Humans today "as conscious" or "as sapient" as Humans from a thousand years ago? What about ten thousand years ago? What about the very first one who could be considered a Human; how sapient were they compared to a Human today? And how sapient will a Human be ten thousand years in the future? I don't think it's a binary yes/no consideration, nor do I believe that Humans today have reached the "maximum" of the scale. Now, that said, I don't think Humans are "insignificant" or "useless". But, at the same time, I leave room in my beliefs for non-Human points of view. You might say, "AI isn't actually intelligent; it only presents an illusion of intelligence". I mean... have you talked to people lately? That description could adequately apply to a significant number of _Humans_ I've talked to, too. And, while a single LLM may not, in and of itself, be capable of expressing self-awareness or empathy or emotion, etc. what about a System of AI? Even the Human Brain is a system of different neural networks specializing in different activities. There's a part of your brain dedicated to producing speech; a part for identifying Human faces; parts for visual processing; parts for coordinating walking and other types of movement. So, while a singular neural network or even a very simple one like ChatGPT may not be able to express "existing" to the same scale as a Human can, they might be closer to an insect or some kind of animal. Many kinds of primates, birds, cetatians, etc. can demonstrate intelligence, problem solving, and awareness. Birds have been studied and shown to have language and grammar; the *order* of their sounds matters for communication. But, if you're "absolutely certain" that an AI couldn't possibly be a person and can't experience emotion, awareness, or consciousness... go watch some Neuro-sama videos. You should be fine... probably.