I’ve already had my Roko’s basilisk existential breakdown a decade ago, so I don’t really care one way or the other.

I just wanna point out that I only called them non-human and I am asking for a precision of language.

> am asking for a precision of language.

“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse wh***. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.”* --James D. Nicoll

* Does not generally apply to scientific papers

▲

xerox13ster 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Precision of ideas isn't purity of language.

	▲	ninjagoo 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Precision of ideas isn't purity of language That's fair. Was trying to be funny, so glossed over the difference. Leaving my post above unedited/undeleted as a testament to your precision, and evidence of my folly. Onwards; more appropriate rebuttals: "English is a precision instrument assembled from spare parts during a thunderstorm." --ChatGPT “If the English language made any sense, a catastrophe would be an apostrophe with fur.” -- Doug Larson