shitposting rave 5: discount rejects from every genre

The question of AI was a major moral debate before the war-- where's the line of personhood if alt and construction method aren't it, how far can we automate without making a new slave caste, all that fun junk-- but, well. War. Turns out "who's people" stops mattering so much when high command wants to drop every moving body possible on the field just for another few seconds of Intel. [Who's bitter? Definitely not the cranky medic showing his age, that would be silly!]

...okay, let's back up, there is quantifiable proof that souls-- in the sense that I'm using the word-- exist. Core personality traits, biases and predispositions are all deep-coded; those strings are unalterable so far as current science has gotten, but they're there, stored in an internal organ in our species entirely separate from the processing core that handles all data input after creation. Sure, there's some argument over whether that makes literally every other species somehow not 'people,' but I can crack my chest open right now and show you a spark with no harm t'anything but any other 'former's sense'a decency.

 

Oh, souls phucking exist alright. And believe me its the worst phinding that one out the hard way. I phigure, iph someones reset at an earlier timestate, theyre still them its just a slightly diphpherent them than they mightve been.

Everyones a little bit oph diphpherent them depending on their phuture though. Too many possibilities.

 

Do you think they're a person?

I would like to ask you the same question I started with: If they were to alter Godsend's core programming to work around the conclusion she came to and reuploaded her, would she be the same person? Or would she be, for instance, her daughter? Wiretap says she would be the same individual because her soul would be the same.

 

I sure think I'm a person. And every other surviving cold-con, pre-war or MTO.

 

Dhara considers this, one ear pricked up as she thinks. "All right...but when you say 'soul' and I say 'soul'...do we really mean the same thing? Because what I am talking about is not something that exists in the material plane and is restricted to a single species. Your spark may perform many or even all of the functions that organic people believe their souls perform, but it's still unique to your species."

She glances at Farrat. "This is going into your area, actually, because just the other day we were talking about how the Talassani view of the sapient organic being is that we are multidimensional beings who exist simultaneously at different levels of spacetime that are somehow entrained."

 

cool
i understand the impulse sometimes rose will send me a snap of like
a grub chewing on her shoelace or something and its just
FUCK thats cute and i have to resist the frankly fucking overwhelming urge to go steal them
only the knowledge that even a mostly self sufficient bug baby cant thrive off box mac and cheese has saved me

[dave pauses for a second]

oh cause youre a dude? jades are mostly girls right
my sisters wife is jade so i know a little bit about what you guys have to do but im not like a jadeologist
savant of xenobiology though i may be

[he looks over at karkat and waggles his eyebrows, smiling]

science is cool as hell though you wanna go into any specific branch or just whatevers willing to have you

 

That's what I'm tryna figure out, before we get bogged down in arguments 'cos we're talking about two different things and just don't know it. What d'you mean by "soul," besides "physically-immaterial something"?

 

"If you are capable of understanding what a person is, either in the present or in another stage of your development...you're a person." Farrat shrugs. "For instance the kits don't really understand personhood because they're three Pennarine solar cycles old, but they will understand it when they're older. There are probably other instances in which someone who is not capable of understanding personhood might still be a person. But I don't believe it's possible to understand personhood and not be a person."

 

Interesting. Where does the line for personhood, in your opinion, stop? Capability for communication? Consciousness? Awareness?

 

What do you mean by 'understanding' personhood? Being able to define it? Does this make a dictionary chatbot a person?

 

HERE'S A RADICAL FUCKING CONCEPT: LET'S ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION AND TREAT ANYONE WHO WANTS TO BE TREATED LIKE A PERSON AS ONE! GASP. SHOCK. AWE. PURE, UNADULTERATED WONDER.

 

-it sounds Very Interested- So the desire for personhood defines it?

 

I MEAN, FUCK, I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT THAT SMART. I'M JUST SAYING IT DOESN'T HURT ANYONE TO TREAT SOMEONE WHO'S COHERENT ENOUGH TO COMMUNICATE THAT DESIRE AS THE THING THEY WANT TO BE TREATED AS. AND IT'S BEEN HAMMERED IN WITH A TOOL ABOUT AS SUBTLE AS AN AIRHORN THAT *NOT* DOING THAT HURTS LOTS OF PEOPLE!

 

Interesting. Your explanation values the minimization of harm over the search for truth; do you not have a solid answer on the definition of personhood because you're afraid of causing harm?

 

YYYYES? I'M NOT *AFRAID.* I JUST HAPPEN TO HAVE A LITTLE EXPERIENCE BEING HIT WITH THE BUSINESS END OF THE UNPERSONING STICK, AND IT SUCKS. I'M NOT GOING TO INFLICT THAT ON SOMEONE ELSE, EVEN IF IT DOES MEAN THAT I'M WRONG OR WHATEVER. OH, WOE, KARKAT IS FALLIBLE, THE SKY IS BLUE, I'LL BE WRONG ABOUT SOMETHING AGAIN.

 

That would assume any answer is correct, but thank you for your input. I will consider your opinion, along with the others.

 

NO, NOT ~ANY~ ANSWER. IF SOMEONE DECIDES THAT, FUCK, I DON'T KNOW, HUMANS CONCEIVED IN NON-TRADITIONAL WAYS AREN'T PEOPLE I'LL FUCKING FIGHT THEM. THE CORRECT ANSWER IS TO TREAT ANYONE WHO WANTS IT AS A PERSON, BECAUSE TRYING TO DIVINE THE TRUE NATURE OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS ULTIMATELY POINTLESS. WHO CARES! TRYING TO FIND OUT CAUSES MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES, SO LET'S STOP POLISHING OUR BULGES FOR TWO FUCKING SECONDS AND ACCEPT THAT MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN'T UNDERSTAND FULLY.

 

I apologize if I was unclear- the latter was what I meant: 'any' answer in the sense that there is a correct answer out there, not that any answer will do.

 

OH.

THERE'S PROBABLY AN ANSWER OUT THERE, JUST LIKE I WILL PROBABLY NOT DIE TOMORROW EVENING IN THE MIDDLE OF BREAKFAST, BUT ~WHO KNOWS~

MAYBE IT WILL BE THE NIGHT I FINALLY CHOKE ON MY GRUBLOAF BECAUSE I CAN'T STOP TALKING LONG ENOUGH TO CHEW.

 

>implying i wouldnt heimlich that toast across the room and slash or provide the kiss of life