Yeah encrypt it or at least put on a nsfw tag or something. Gosh. People flaunt their privates like it’s Onlyfans.

Yup. Accurately guessing the next thought (or action) is all brains need to do so I don’t see what the alleged “magic” is supposed to solve.

The Chinese room thought experiment doesn’t prove anything and probably confuses the discussion more than it clarifies.

In order for the Chinese room to convince an outside observer of knowing Chinese like a person the room as a whole basically needs to be sentient and understand Chinese. The person in the room doesn’t need to understand Chinese. “The room” understands Chinese.

The confounding part is the book, pen and paper. It suggests that the room is “dumb”. But to behave like a person the person-not-knowing-Chinese plus book and paper needs to be able to memorize and reason about very complex concepts. You can do that with pen and paper and not-understanding-Chinese person it just takes an awful amount of time and complex set of continuously changing rules in said book.

Edit:

If you’re already knee deep in existing code and looking for bugs or need to write quite specific algorithms it seems not very useful. But if you for some reason need to write stuff that has the slightest feeling of boilerplate, like how do I interact with well established framework or service X while doing A, B C it can be really useful.

You shouldn’t use code that you don’t understand. Chatgpt outputs quite readable and understandable code and makes sure to explain a lot of it and you can ask questions about it.

It can save quite a lot of effort, especially for tasks that are more tedious than hard. Even more if you have a general idea of what you want to do but you’re not familiar with the specific tools and libraries that you want to use for the task.

The negative connotation that you mention is the point of the trade off. On one hand it makes the message less appealing - because it’s using a symbolic name with a negative connotation.

On the other hand - the negative connotation makes it less likely that the symbols will be hijacked by opponents.

By example:

• Green movements don’t have symbols with such connotation. Opponents use green washing to hijack the movement.
• Pirate party movements do have names and symbols with negative connotations. If you’re working with intellectual property you don’t want to be associated with piracy. There’s no such thing as pirate-washing…(?) However, open source movements is a related phenomenon and a counter example. There have been examples of open source-washing. Companies that pretend to be open but they really aren’t really. Android and openai comes to mind.

When a movement is formed there is a possibility to build a narrative that is more or less desirable to hijack. Making it less desirable to hijack might make it less desirable overall. That’s the trade off.

You have a good point. Although I doubt it’s worth the trade off. I think pirate party movements vs environmental movement is a good comparison. Pirate party-ism kind of died. Environmentalism lives on. Not saying it’s necessarily because of naming. But, I don’t think sounding like you’re “pro theft” helped.

But that’s kind of the point here. There hasn’t been any win. So far no proposed system has been able to beat capitalism in terms of efficiency. Right?