While I agree the claims may be strong, they're not inconceivable. I still think current AI architectures are fundamentally incapable of replacing us in any of the ways discussed, however it is now something I consider plausible as seeing happen in my lifetime.

▲

fidotron 2 days ago | parent [-]

Furthermore, any attempt to pretend otherwise is an appeal to the idea we are in literal fact haunted by our own internal demons that are inexplicable to science or mathematics.

One of the effects of this entire debate is it's exposed how many people claiming to be pure mechanistic rationalists actually never were. At least those of an openly religious inclination have been sticking to their position consistently.

	▲	placebo 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Agreed. Unfortunately some religious inclinations can be just as tedious as pure mechanistic rational inclinations, even if they are consistent. Fortunately, these are not the only two options available. The future that the article points to is not necessarily only bad news - it might be the uncomfortable truth required to transcend our limiting beliefs.