Mine is that some people don’t consider viruses alive. These people are fucking stupid because giruses exist as do virophages. Like yes unalive things literally hunting other unalive things totally makes sense.

  • MF_COOM [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    Aliveness isn’t a fact about reality, it’s a question about how big a circle we draw around things that exist and say “these are ‘alive’”. It’s a semantic discussion.

    I have a lot of special interests and lots of facts, but since I’m going through a spaghetti western phase rn I’ll just share this quote from Sergio Leone:

    • i_drink_bleach [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      This also fascinates me. According to our definition of life viruses are not actually alive. But by that same definition, fire is as “alive” as a virus.

      I tend to agree. Fire isn’t alive. It does technically slot into a lot of our requirements though. Viruses aren’t really alive either. Without a host they just sit dormant until they either decay from the environment or eventually find a host. Without a host body they are incapable of acting. But barring harsh environmental circumstances, they can technically lie dormant for eternity. Something “alive” things cannot do.

      But we can’t just define it like porn: “I know it when I see it.” That’s not an acceptable definition. Without getting into solipsism, and p-zombies, and blah blah blah; I’m alive. You’re alive. Cats are alive (and also extremely cool).

      I don’t think LLMs are alive. I don’t even think they are intelligent in any capacity. But at what point does an AI become “alive?” How do we define that? A Turing test? If it passes a Turing test, it still doesn’t meet several of the requirements for “life” as currently defined. What then? Do we redefine “life”, or do we relegate a new form of life as “non-life”, to be used and abused? That seems horrifying.

      I have no answers. It’s just something I find really interesting to think about.