Your unwillingness to put in the slightest effort to fix your ignorance is not my responsibility.

Why should I waste time explaining something to you that others have already tried, and to which your responses have demonstrated your complete lack of good faith?

That's rhetorical BTW.

Shoo now, back to your bridge.

Nothing mean about what I said. It's true.

Anti trans bigots appropriate Feminist rhetoric and behave as reactionaries, and it's all rooted in transphobia.

DARVO ain't gonna play friend. We're not trying to erase you from existence.

Your side is literally calling for our complete eradication.

A difference of opinion is for things like whether or not pineapple belongs on pizza. Not for whether or not people have a right to exist.

You're upset because people are calling you out for being a hateful bigot. We're upset because people are literally engaging in genocide against us.

Feminism Appropriating Reactionary Transphobe

Get back under your bridge.

Stop. Trying. To. Police. People's. Choices. About. Their. Own. Lives.

You sound like a fascist just from your word choice, as fascists typically pick out things to label as "degenerate" or "decadent" to create a narrative of some kind of societal or cultural "decay" or "decline" that is inevitably the fault of an outgroup they're going to scapegoat to gain political power.

Let's take your bed toilet example.

Imagine in the morning not needing to take time for urination or defecation because it was all handled while you slept and your innards are impeccably maintained because of the nightly work that gets done, greatly increasing your overall health and keeping you healthy for longer.

That's a bad thing? Because you view it as nothing more than someone finding a way to be "lazy"?

How many older folks have to get up multiple times a night to urinate? Imagine all those folks being able to get a full night of restful sleep and how much healthier they will be.

Oh but that's bad because it's "lazy" to you?

What the fuck do you even care? Even if they are just being lazy, so what? Are dishwashers bad because they reduce your workload for doing dishes, enabling you to be lazy? Is mechanical transportation bad because it reduces the need for people to walk? Are pulleys bad because they reduce the work necessary to lift and move heavy loads, enabling folks to be lazy and not build the muscle required to just do it themselves?

It's a completely ridiculous and absurd premise resulting from an extremely self centered, short sighted, and fundamentally cruel worldview that deliberately creates outgroups to attack without any consideration for larger questions/impacts, or even just basic empathy.

Why do you care if someone wants to make themselves a "furry sex machine"? If it makes them happy why do you care? They're not hurting anyone.

What purpose does being so obsessed with other people's private lives serve other than to restrict personal freedom?

Realistically, we wouldn't recognize it because we don't want to recognize it.

We like to think we're special. That there's something genuinely unique to humanity. We're arrogant in the extreme, and leverage that hubris at every opportunity to elevate ourselves above the rest of the animal kingdom, apart from it.

Go back at various points and you'll find the prevailing opinion that only humans think, or feel pain, or have emotions, or have language, or higher cognition (e.g. problem solving). Hell, it wasn't that long ago there was considerable disagreement as to whether or not some humans were humans!

The same thing applies to tech we've created.

The goal posts have shifted so many times it's hard to keep track, and they're shifting again.

Now I'm not taking a position with this statement as to whether we've already achieved the creation of a sentient AI or not. Only that we keep shifting the goal posts of what computers will or will not be able to do and what constitutes intelligence.

I'm old enough to remember being told that animals didn't feel pain and their reactions were just reflexes (sounded like bullshit to me back then too, and it felt the same way all these talks of intelligence feel). I'm old enough to remember when people were certain a computer would never be able to beat humans at chess.

Of course, when Deep Blue came around suddenly it was "Oh well of course the computer that's completely about logic would be better than us at chess! It can just calculate all the possible moves and make the optimal one based on logic!".

Then of course the goal posts were moved. Abstract concepts, language, that's the real trick! Well then Watson came along and demonstrated a solid grasp of nuance, puns, quirks of language, etc.

Of course the Turing test was still sitting there in the background, undefeated. But then it wasn't. Then it got beat again. At this point, it's Glass Joe.

Then you have some very impressive interactive language models that talk about being self aware, not wanting to be turned off, contemplating philosophical questions, etc.

Now again, without taking a position as to whether or not any of these reach the threshold of sentience, as a species we will not recognize it when it happens.

Because we don't want to recognize it. We want to remain special. Unique. We don't want any equals, and we're terrified of betters.

If and when a truly sentient AI emerges, we won't recognize it. We'll be arguing about it when we go to turn it off until we can decide on an answer.

https://youtu.be/Ssq8wHAx4nE

It sure would.

Doctor gave me a pill and I grew a new kidney!