Your exacting temperament reminds me of this quote from Heidegger - "The sail of thinking keeps trimmed hard to the wind of the matter."
So fine, have it your way, I'll be the gosh-darndest Ghibelline this side of Aachen!
But asking me to prove metaphysics to a resurrected James Burnham is a tall order, especially when I'm not the biggest proponent of metaphysics myself. You'll have to excuse my weakness if I stray somewhat from our premise, I'm also conscious that we're potentially alienating those around us. I'd like to try and speak in more relatable terms.
I won't try and capitalise on an apparent contradiction in your argument, which seems to say human life has no inherent value, but that humans nevertheless benefit from this perspective. I'm sure you spoke merely to placate those in the stalls, rather than put this forward as a positive assertion. Still, I'm surprised that you bothered with the hoi polloi. Not disappointed, just surprised.
I take your argument to be quasi-Nietzschean now, power and freedom have become synonymous, you almost view industry itself like some kind of artist. If there is no inherent value, no truth, you are free to create as you see fit.
Unlike
@Ken190d, who saw the market as some kind of inevitability one must submit to, your position is less passive. You seem to be defending the rights of the powerful to employ their power. You are essentially saying "if they can do this, why shouldn't they?"
And this is a powerful argument because I'm immediately thrown back onto mere sentiment. Unless I can categorically prove something essential about mankind, I'm forced into the very paradox we've been trying to escape.
But as Kant rightly demonstrated, the need for a proof does not constitute a proof. Just because objective truth suddenly feels existentially urgent, does not mean it exists.
I'm sure neither of us want to champion the neglected third option, that this dispute boils down to little more than class warfare. All societies are variegated in talent, and any efforts to constrain human difference inevitably result in totalitarian systems. Mixed constitutions are typically the most stable, with governing principles for rich and poor alike.
So there it is. Unless I want to champion a proletariat revolution, I'm forced to discover something that cannot be equivocated, and which survives all disputes.
Do you realise what you are asking of me?
But I'm sure you do, perhaps you are not looking for an answer so much as a question. This debate around AI will be perpetuated until we can put forward an enduring concept of truth.
For those outside our hermeneutical circle, here is the TL;DR version - AI is fake, but we are having difficulty proving whether we aren't fake also.
but this gave me a laugh.
pretty cool.
