• BEYOUBlåhaj@lemmy.world
    3·
    2 days ago

    Honestly this kind of lingo has fallen off so much. Need a captcha that tells the user it will weigh your soul

  • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    1·
    2 days ago

    Goddamn this post has a lot of comments.

    Wonder what the image is. My pihole is blocking the domain and … it’s difficult to change.

    • felsiq@piefed.zipOPEnglish
      1·
      1 day ago

      when the image gets blocked does it block the alt text too? i can add it to the post body if you’re not able to see if without the image being there, but that seems a little counter to the point of alt text lol

    • imadethis@fedinsfw.appEnglish
      1·
      2 days ago

      The furry site of the fediverse, pawb.social, has a capcha-like thing that says “To prevent spam and content scraping, we’re needing to verify you’re human.”

      Captioned/titled “furries in shambles”

  • yucandu@lemmy.world
    3·
    3 days ago

    An argument I overheard recently:

    “…I think he’s a furry.”

    “Well, furries are people too.”

    “No, Dave, I’m pretty sure they’re not, that’s the whole point.”

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      11·
      3 days ago

      Well, “people” and “humans” aren’t the same thing. One’s a subset of the other.

      Problem with getting too philosophical here is that someday soon the bots might also count as a subset. Then things get really complicated.

      • AVincentInSpace@pawb.socialEnglish
        1·
        2 days ago

        someday soon the bots might also count as a subset

        Haha, fuck no.

        If you mean LLMs, you should give anything Sam Altman says about AGI about as much credence as you give Elon Musk talking about self driving cars. If you mean sapient Fediverse users (fill in the blanks there) who identify as robots, they tend to get really angry if you refer to them as people.

    • Bilb!@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      3 days ago

      I think in fantasy you do have what can only be called non-human people. The definition for the word “person” tends to include “human,” but only because in real life human persons are the only ones that are known to exist.

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        1·
        3 days ago

        Sadly, in the US, we have non-human persons. They’re called corporations, and for the moment they have more rights than humans do.

        Furries count as human persons, even if they identify as another kind of beastie.

      • erin@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        0·
        3 days ago

        I’ve had enough non-human friends that I extend the definition to other animals. I’ve personally known dogs and cats that display remarkable personality and emotional intelligence, not to mention all the great examples of non-human animal communication and love available online. Animals are such people, when you get to know them.

        • BooBees@fedinsfw.appEnglish
          0·
          2 days ago

          Same, personhood isn’t limited to humans. If you can be a best friend or confidant or true co-companion that is mutually beneficial and mutually understood, that’s all I need to know there’s a person in there. I’ll even extend it to other animals that exhibit complex thought, considerations, relflective behavior, but I don’t push that on other human people, if they want to join me in doing so, they’re my kind of people. The more the merrier. I feel bad for people who can’t see animals that earned their friendship as fiends, as people.

          • OwOarchist@pawb.socialEnglish
            0·
            3 days ago

            Where the waters really get muddy is in deciding where to draw the line between ‘person’ and ‘not a person’ when it comes to AI.

            Current AI is almost certainly not a person … but at some point, it seems almost inevitable that it will progress to the point where it crosses the line of personhood. Where do we draw that line? How will we know if an AI has crossed it? And how do we address the rights and responsibilities of an artificial person? Is it then unethical to turn it off or delete it? Is it okay to turn it off as long as you intend to turn it back on later? Should it have a say in government, be able to vote? Can you get married to it? Does it have a right to create copies of itself the way you have a right to have children? Is it unethical to make copies of it without its consent? Can it own property? Can it own copyrights to ‘creative’ works it produces? Does allowing a corporation to own it and tell it what to do amount to slavery? Do we have an obligation to provide it with server space and electricity if it can’t provide those for itself? Can/should it be punished if it breaks laws, and how?

              • OwOarchist@pawb.socialEnglish
                1·
                2 days ago

                Hey, man. I don’t make much effort to keep up with the bleeding edge of AI development, and I also don’t know exactly how to define a ‘person’. Cut me some slack.

                • Venia Silente@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                  1·
                  1 day ago

                  Fair point. But I’d say regardless of how much advancement is made in (realistic nowadays) AI, it will never even be close to being a person. It can not even be remotely argued that AI is “12% of a person”. It’s a category difference. Even given our lack of understanding of the meatphysics involved, we know at least enough about the world to come up with an empiric definition of “person” and I’d say the most viable interpretations (“living organism of sufficient and demonstrable complexity characterized by homologation and similarity to the traits of the hominid self”) readily discounts AI for the foreseeable future.

    • tachikoma@lemmy.today
      0·
      3 days ago

      If furries aren’t people; Then furries fucking animals isn’t beastiality.

      This is a very slippery slope. 😓

      • AVincentInSpace@pawb.socialEnglish
        1·
        1 day ago

        As a furry, let me assure you that while the furry fandom is incredibly broad and covers a wide range of interests with surprisingly little overlap, perhaps the one thing that unites all of us is how much we despise zoophiles.

        If you’d like to see proof of this, look up Hypnotist Sappho.

  • Funkt4st1c@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    3 days ago

    Furries know they are human.

    Therians believe they are an animal, but also acknowledge they are in a human body.

    Obviously if youre a therian youre probably a furry, but being a furry does not mean youre a therian. Its a real rectangle-square situation

    • Seralth@piefed.seralth.comEnglish
      1·
      2 days ago

      Man i have literally never met a single therian that doesn’t get outrageously pissed off when you even remotely suggest they might be a furry. They are rare tho, so i could have just had bad luck.

      • Kay Ohtie@pawb.socialEnglish
        2·
        2 days ago

        I think that’s a “used to be the case” thing, but not the case now, or at least those ones are much more separated. I know plenty of furry + therian types now, myself included.

        And yes, under zero delusions of body etc. I don’t even think about these prompts, but it’s fun and makes for waggy feels when I see something that’s altered to be more broad. X3

      • Funkt4st1c@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 days ago

        To be entirely honest, ive never known one, and the ones ive met have been at conventions, so my anecdotes might be skewed.

  • SeeMarkFly@lemmy.mlEnglish
    3·
    3 days ago

    To prove that you are human, click on all the photos that show places you would use for shelter during a robot uprising.