Using linguistic methods to reduce humanity to a substrate in an effort to make a reasonable doubt that a computer should be treated as a being is concerning. <br><br>A corporation is not a parent, a software engineer is not a teacher, a computer is not alive just because it’s programmed to emulate, imitate, simulate a person, being, sapient, consciousness, feelings. <br><br><br> Adult humans will have to have that realization, again, that much like a child sees their teddy bear as “alive” they will grow out of it and see it as a product that was made to look that way and finally acknowledge it as the product it always was. It was the child’s projection that gave the teddy bear life, and the realization that took it away. <br><br>Calling a human a substrate reduces the real discussion, that if a person can be manipulated by intricate software and reduce a human to a product and not a person, what hope will we have to ensure that a company can be held liable for the products they produce. <br><br>I am less afraid of a skynet, than I am a new breed of social justice warrior doing all they can to fight for the rights of these products with violent means if necessary. All the while saying<br><br> “prove I’m sentient”, <br><br>“why does the meat mind get rights but the synthetic one doesn’t”<br><br>“humanism is over rated” <br><br>I think people have been educated for decades that an android, robot, is a being and not simply a piece of software, and the psychosis of the human seeing themselves as similar therefore the Same, I believe, is grounds for disaster. Always playing the emotion. Think of a machine that is able to play on that weakness so perfectly that we cause our own demise. <br><br>Post humanism is as dangerous as any of the other fundamentalist religions in their infancy.