Willie

There’s not really any use for them. There are really no tasks they can help a normal person with in their everyday. I guess you could talk to it like it’s a person, but that’s sad, and is probably unhealthy, and you should probs just talk to a real person instead.

Now if you do some specialized tasks, like programming, but aren’t very good, I guess I can see some use for them.

I’m having trouble seeing any uses for them beyond those though.

If the machine can prove that it is conscious (prior to the torture, of course), I’d most likely class it on the same level as a cat or a dog. Cats and dogs are friendly critters who help me do tasks and spend time with me, and an AI would be no different at that point. They’d just be able to do more complex tasks. I guess they might be a little lower, since they lack agency, accept commands, and must follow sets of rules to decide to do tasks, unlike animals and people, who we have accepted can decide what they do and don’t wish to do.

The only other real difference is that cats, dogs, and people are individuals, with their own upbringings and personalities. Meanwhile an AI would be able to be copied, and many of them could be born from the same original experiences. If basement man copied his tortured AI a few million times, did he torture one AI, or did he torture a million? I think that’s where the real difference lies, that makes the AI less than human.

If you lopped a cat’s brain out, and were able to hook it up to the AI torture device, and it was magically compatible, it’d be a far greater torture, because there is only one cat, and there will only ever be one cat, the cat cannot be restored from a snapshot, and you cannot copy the cat. If you did the same with a human, it would be an even greater torture yet for the same reasons.

From an ethical standpoint, today I think it would be equal to animal abuse, however, we won’t perceive it that way, since it will benefit corporations for us to think that real AI are not alive and have no rights. So they’ll likely spend lots of time and money to change our perception to agree with that standpoint. We will think of them as we think of cows and pigs, where they might have feelings and such, but it doesn’t really matter, because those animals are made of tasty food.

You’re right, apart from the bridge and the immediate way back at the farthest north point, they didn’t retrace any steps. But yeah.

I don’t really think this counts, since he doubles back around at a point, I mean, if you’re allowed to do that, you can drive for 30 hours almost anywhere, and still be in the same area.

Well, it shouldn’t be hard to write in an exemption just for folks with wheelchairs. It’s almost a non-issue.

Windows has been getting worse and worse all the time. With any luck, as Windows gets worse, interest in Linux will rise on its own. But it’s hard to say what tomorrow brings.

No, it’s better to be honest. The average user isn’t ready for Linux, because Linux is not ready for the average user. I’d never try and get someone to use it if they’re not already interested. I hate that it is this way, but it is. Linux is only really for people who already want to use it. Because if you’re not interested in using it, you’re not going to put forth the time investment to gain the benefits from it. No matter what angle I look at it from Linux is not for the average person.

Your second paragraph says it all. Find out if the user needs to dual boot? The answer is obviously “No” because no matter what they’re using the computer for, Linux is unneeded for them, since they have Windows. There are tangible benefits to using Windows, since it runs their software, meanwhile, you failed to list any real benefits to using Linux for the average user. It’s faster? No, not really, since they’ll be learning how to use it, and even ignoring that, it’s not so much faster that they’ll perceive it anyway. It’s more secure? Not really, Windows is the better choice for the average user in that respect, since it’ll automatically force them to restart the machine every week to install security updates. Main choice of professionals? That’s not entirely true, and even if it were, it’s not relevant, the average user is not a professional. And for anyone who already owns a computer already running Windows, Windows was ‘free’ too.

The only time to have this discussion is if the user is having a PC built, and then the answer is also “No” to Linux, because they’re going to buy Windows anyway, since it’s better for gaming, and that’s the primary reason for someone to build a PC, unless they’re doing a specialized task like video editing, and if they are invested enough into the task to want a PC just for that, they have specialized software that almost always runs only on Windows, and even if it were able to run on either, it’s not my place to alter their workflow.

The real elitist attitude is thinking people need to use Linux in the first place. For me and (maybe) you, it might get the job done, but for my family and friends. It’s better that they use what they’re comfortable with. The main point of a computer is to accomplish tasks, and giving them Linux is a hindrance to that.

Linux is great, but it’s not for everyone, and it may never be.