Tiwald also has a nice academic article on this important topic, if you want to go deeper!

philpapers.org/rec/TIWGIO

As a Wang Yangming partisan, I cheered at this quote:

Essay here: scottaaronson.blog?p=9030

😢

Could be but what about a not too but decent student — very bad incentives there I fear

the fear is that we’re under accounting for the fact that
the student who doesn’t want to use AI is currently punished because their peers do better by shortcuts

yes agree! you want to make the risk bad enough that it becomes less incentivized; current practice means that if you don't use it, you're being dumb...I want to change that

The professor I'm currently TAing for is making students use an extension called 'Process Feedback' that tracks key logs and time on the document: processfeedback.org

Yes

Yes I ask them to make me editor on their doc

oh? I have been using the “history” function there but it doesn’t track copy-paste

Totally agree! it's such a confusing and hard area. I fear that feelings run so high about it that many are (reasonably) steering clear of discussing it for fear of error. But IMO we need to get clearer in our thinking, even if that involves stumbles along the way.

Not actually relevant, but I don't eat meat (including fish), and I do delete AI chats all the time, so take that for what it's worth.

Thanks, I appreciate this. I hoped it was clear that the analogy is about illustrating that many think that uncertainty about what is a welfare subject can motivate action, not that "fish = AI". But ambiguity is in the eye of the reader and I'm sorry to hear it isn't/wasn't clear.

The analogy is clearly about risk! We say "It is *uncertain*". This uncertainty...it's clear that the point is about potential welfare subjects...

Your original post said we are "equating" them; I don't think that's a reasonable reading of this

This is not "equating" the moral status of the two as you originally said. It's an **analogy** about risk.

These are hard issues. I appreciate people have very strong feelings about them. But exactly for that reason it's important to be fair in issuing very strongly worded claims.

neutral on how welfare status and mentality are understood. That's a presentational issue not a misunderstanding.

2. We rote: "As an analogy, it is uncertain whether fish are welfare subjects. This uncertainty stops many people from eating fish, because they want to avoid the risk of moral harm."

1. This is very different from what you said in your original post. It is not misunderstanding "how AI works". I appreciate you would have done things differently than we did, but this isan unfair accusation. You would have liked functionalism to be a premise; we thought it was better to be...

We definitely don't make this "equation". We give an example to illustrate why potential moral subject-hood can matter to what we should do. An illustrative example is not an equation.

Your point about repeating is interesting. I don't share that view, but I understand it.