> You mean these statements?

Not quite exactly.

    Teapots are not compelling. | | God is compelling t billions of people.

My error was not pointing out those sentences. With those in mind you see that I take each of your claims and makes a parallel to the Teapot argument.

> It's metonymy. "X" stands in for "people who argue for X".

I needed to be sure. I have enough experience with people replying that they didn’t mean that.

Sometimes people say the opposite thing because they accidentally negated a sentence.

> If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, you should adjust your priors to assign a higher likelihood that it is a duck.

Then someone points out that it has no anus and doesn’t need to breathe. But bodily functions? Harumph, why would a true duck need that?

Of course people who argue for AI Consciousness already know that. The actual case under discussion is more absurd than a duck trying to mate with a robot duck.

> All measurements contain error; you can't ever observe, "that is a duck," only "that looks like a duck". All knowledge is founded on a sufficiently deep stack of "looking like a duck" that we may assert it with confidence.

All perfectly generic philosophical arguments. Which doesn’t hold any more water for AI Consciousness than AI Toaster... except for the fact that humans find it compelling.

Like how a light bug could find artificial light compelling.

> To the extent we have objective measures (like conducting a Turing test on blind participants), it can meet them too. You can't say the same of a toaster.

The Turing Test is bunk with regards to objective reality, like whether some thing has consciousness.

> "It is a statistical model, ergo it is not conscious" is also an argument from incredulity. I don't know if that's your view or not but it's the one my remarks have been addressing in general.

Who has said ergo? Don’t just assert that someone has asserted a logical implication unless that is the case.

Bullshit arguments don’t get the privilege of symmetry. That AI might be conscious because it is compelling to humans is a bullshit argument, and just supported by but I don’t see why not. People are free to dismiss the claim by pointing at one of a hundred factors, like how it is “just a statistical model”. Just pull something out of the hat.

Yes, it is very unfair. The Church of AI can do the hard work of throwing out incredulous claims while people who don’t quite buy those statement don’t read up on five different philosophical and scientific subjects in order to get an informed opinion about how a primate might be different from a blob of numbers.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44098845

> Then someone points out that it has no anus and doesn’t need to breathe. But bodily functions? Harumph, why would a true duck need that?

Alternatively, your priors about ducks may be wrong.