I think the strongest argument against AI consciousness is that there's no persistent internal state, no feedback, and no change; the 'conversation' you're having is a series of one-off API calls where each subsequent call is provided enough information about the previous calls for it to generate a plausible response.
If we (very, very generously) assume that an LLM is a structure capable of conscious thought, then it's still not conscious - we've created a representation of a brain which we turn on for a fraction of a second to generate text and then return it to the representative state. There's no opportunity to develop consciousness, it's a brain trapped in stasis.
When thinking about verifying your identity with a service, you have to ask yourself "what will be the impact to me if everything this service knows about me, every click I've made, everything I've watched/read/uploaded is posted publicly on the internet, attached to my full name, address and photo?". Because those are the very real stakes; if you verify with enough services, this will happen to you.
Weigh that against the value of using the service. A lot of times that will still probably come out in favor of using the service. Sometimes, especially given the kind of services that want age verification, the potential cost is such that you would be insane to verify.
Talking down to the LLM is anthropomorphizing it. It's misbehaving software that will not take advice or correction. Reject its bad contributions, delete its comments, ban it from the repo. If it persists, complain to or take legal action against the person who is running the software and is therefore morally and legally responsible for its actions.
Treat it just like you would someone running a script to spam your comments with garbage.
"This trajectory explains why there is no crater at Köfels. The incoming angle was very low (six degrees) and means the asteroid clipped a mountain called Gamskogel above the town of Längenfeld, 11 kilometers from Köfels, and this caused the asteroid to explode before it reached its final impact point. As it traveled down the valley it became a fireball, around five kilometers in diameter"
This doesn't even make any sense. A 1km asteroid going many kilometers a second entered at a six degree angle, tore through hundreds of miles of atmosphere without burning up or breaking up, hit a mountain causing a landslide and only then turned into a 5km fireball and traveled down the valley (at a height of ~1500 meters above the valley floor) and just sort of evaporated?
I don't think physics works the way the author of this piece thinks physics works.
This isn't really an impressive test; growing corn is an extremely well-documented solved problem, the sort of thing that we already know LLMs excel at. An LLM that couldn't reliably tell you what to do at each step of the corn-farming process would be a very poor LLM.
This seems like something along the lines of "We know we can use Excel to calculate profit/loss for a Mexican restaurant, but will it work for a Tibetan-Indonesian fusion restaurant? Nobody's ever done that before!"
It would be impressive in the sense of "Can I ask AI to make me money, and it does so autonomously?", since that's just a free source of money (until other people do it better than you and with more capital). But looking at everything here, I'm dubious that the AI will be able to do that. Farming isn't that high of a margin business, and it's adding a lot of inefficiency and other issues (small acreage, unbelievably low amounts budgeted for labor and machinery, dubious plan for "IoT Sensor Kit", no budget for seeds, etc.).
Apparently they are not completely finished with the project - according to this article from five days ago, there are still some signal candidates currently in the process of being re-observed with the FAST radio telescope.
I read the whole thing and enjoyed both the premise and the writing, but yeah, it would have benefited considerably from the attention of a professional editor and a couple of rounds of rewrites.
My 84 year old mom uses AirPods Pro 2 as an aid for moderate hearing loss and has been satisfied. As others have noted, the difference is night and day; I went from having to yell just to be occasionally understood to being able to have a normal conversation.
My understanding is they are pretty good hearing aids, but they don't have the battery life that purpose-built aids do (4-5 hours vs 18-24) so they're not optimal for full-time use. This is fine for her use case, since she only uses them when she wants to talk to someone, but could be an issue for someone who wants to wear them all day, every day.
If we (very, very generously) assume that an LLM is a structure capable of conscious thought, then it's still not conscious - we've created a representation of a brain which we turn on for a fraction of a second to generate text and then return it to the representative state. There's no opportunity to develop consciousness, it's a brain trapped in stasis.