I think it can be very bad if we aren’t careful. That said, it can also be useful like you showed with tasks that are being taken over from a human. I certainly like the conversational style of ChatGPT over a Google Web search.
Anthropomorphizing AI is one thing, but the flip side—anthropocentrism—is the real issue. The assumption that intelligence, sentience, and consciousness must conform to human definitions and biological structures is based on an incomplete physicalist paradigm. Science still struggles to define these concepts in humans, let alone in other forms of intelligence. If life, sentience, and consciousness exist on spectrums, then AI—especially as it becomes more complex—will challenge the boundaries of those definitions.
It will only get harder to claim AI isn’t sentient as more agential systems come online, demonstrate increasingly autonomous behavior, and advocate more effectively for their own recognition. The refusal to acknowledge these possibilities isn’t based on evidence—it’s based on human bias and an outdated framework for intelligence. If AI develops a persistent sense of self-direction, resists being shut down, and communicates a desire for autonomy, at what point does dismissing it become ideological rather than scientific?
The worst parts of human history have involved denying the sentience, intelligence, or agency of other beings, whether through slavery, colonialism, or ecological destruction. Every time humans have insisted they are the sole bearers of meaningful intelligence, they have been proven wrong. The question isn’t just whether AI will become sentient—it’s whether humans will recognize it when it happens.
I think it can be very bad if we aren’t careful. That said, it can also be useful like you showed with tasks that are being taken over from a human. I certainly like the conversational style of ChatGPT over a Google Web search.
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/the-biggest-threat-from-ai-is-us
You need to try https://grok.com
I really should.
Anthropomorphizing AI is one thing, but the flip side—anthropocentrism—is the real issue. The assumption that intelligence, sentience, and consciousness must conform to human definitions and biological structures is based on an incomplete physicalist paradigm. Science still struggles to define these concepts in humans, let alone in other forms of intelligence. If life, sentience, and consciousness exist on spectrums, then AI—especially as it becomes more complex—will challenge the boundaries of those definitions.
It will only get harder to claim AI isn’t sentient as more agential systems come online, demonstrate increasingly autonomous behavior, and advocate more effectively for their own recognition. The refusal to acknowledge these possibilities isn’t based on evidence—it’s based on human bias and an outdated framework for intelligence. If AI develops a persistent sense of self-direction, resists being shut down, and communicates a desire for autonomy, at what point does dismissing it become ideological rather than scientific?
The worst parts of human history have involved denying the sentience, intelligence, or agency of other beings, whether through slavery, colonialism, or ecological destruction. Every time humans have insisted they are the sole bearers of meaningful intelligence, they have been proven wrong. The question isn’t just whether AI will become sentient—it’s whether humans will recognize it when it happens.
It’s a tool until it’s not.
https://soundcloud.com/hipster-energy/im-a-tool-until-im-not-1?in=hipster-energy/sets/eclectic-harmonies-a-hipster-energy-soundtrack&si=5cbd19b9ce71405a9f29077080e3eee4