We’d have to start distinguishing in detail what “people” meant in a context that includes AIs. And equally we’d have to address these kinds of questions if our world included e.g. Vulcans or other sapient quasi-humanlike intelligent bio-critters from other worlds.
Speaking to the thread, not to @Der_Trihs exclusively …
I really feel like some folks are trying to dance on dictionary definitions of conventional terms coined before AIs were recognized as even a theoretical possibility. And are thereby trying to sweep under the rug the legitimate questions about how humans can, will, and should think and feel about these new things.
Things which aren’t biological, aren’t “alive” in the biological sense, yet have persistence over (perhaps finite) time, intelligence, and agency. All the earmarks of sentience and sapience. Things that through their connections to the mechanical world, can directly take actions and cause changes in the familiar real physical world.
Fussy words aside, what will we humans think and do when this comes to pass?
I think there are two conversations here. One is about,as you say, what kind of personhood actual artifical intelligences of the order of Iain M Banks “Minds” would have, and how we should it recognise it.
The other conversation is about “AIs” as they currently exist which in the context of the OPs complaints about datacentre energy use and the “stealing” of jobs, puts us fairly in the realm of whether it is ok to casually refer to LLMs as “fucking clankers”.
And of course it is. I referred to my bike during a maintenance session the other day as a “bastard finger-nipping imbalanced two-wheeled chainfuck” and a) I was right to do so, that thing’s got in for me and b) I was not displaying anti-bike bigotry, nor could I ever be because bikes are just things. Ditto LLMs, which because we interact with them using language rather than spanners can give the impression of having personality, intelligence etc. but don’t, any more than putting googly-eyes on a rock makes it not-a-thing.
Calling current AIs “fucking clankers” isn’t racism or bigotry any more than Basil Fawlty birching his broken down car is a hate crime. They’re just things. It’s ok to anthropomorphise things for the purposes of venting frustration at them, it’s a completely normal thing to do that has no harms attached to it, everyone in this thread has done it and it does not reflect badly on them at all.
But seeing neither concept exists in the real world, it is entirely correct to say neither current AIs or toasters can be the victim of bigotry
Then I mostly agree w you. But I am prejudiced against current AI = LLM as a problem solving tool. Like @Stanislaus bicycle, they’re not good machines.
If you mean true AI is categorically impossible so the topic itself is moot at best and stupid at worst, well, I disagree with that premise.
It up to you how you interpret the OP but I definitely don’t read it as talking about a hypothetical sci-fi universe where true AI exists
Though I would say there is nothing hypothetical about the racism inherent in making that equivalence, between not liking AI and the very real bigotry oppressed human ethic groups face. There is a huge overlap between the AI bros who make these kind of claims about AGI and Musk-style white supremacists. That’s not a coincidence.
I got the impression that the OP’s sister was referring to true AI, perhaps assuming we already have it. Because that’s the only reason anyone would even consider “racism”. You’d need to first assume some sort of personhood, something you don’t have with a simple chat/search engine.
Otherwise the subject of AI would not have spurred this debate in the first place.
To use an analogy, if some asks you about a quality flyswatter, you don’t assume they’re talking about the zipper fly on a pair of pants.
There have been people who claimed that people they don’t like lack souls. Which is likely relevant to this argument because I bet that most of the people who believe in souls would claim a sapient AI lacks one to justify them enslaving or killing it. That’s much of the point of believing in souls after all; manufacturing of moral justifications for various types of otherwise questionable or obviously-immoral things.
Materialists do much the same thing to be fair, they just replace “soul” with “consciousness”.
Maybe but “an evil wizard might have imprisoned someone’s soul in it” is as good an argument for toasters being victims of racism as “they are true artificial general intelligence” is for AIs being victims of racism.
We don’t know they are impossible. Just like true AGI it’s widely agreed they don’t currently exist (wizards that is not souls). There are some pretty compelling reasons to think they will never exist, though some people disagree with those arguments.