"What have the Romans ever done for us?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ)

If you are so allergic to using terms previously reserved for animal behaviour, you can instead unpack the definition and say that they produce outputs which make human and algorithmic observers conclude that they did not instantiate some undesirable pattern in other parts of their output, while actually instantiating those undesirable patterns. Does this seem any less problematic than deception to you?

Environmentalism has always been a "weight of our sins" sort of issue. Plastic straws are a rounding error relative to all the capricious uses of plastic and fossil fuels in our economy, but few things feel as frivolous as using once and then throwing away a piece of plastic for personal convenience while engaging in an already-kinda-sinful feeling activity like indulging in a soft drink, while simultaneously the paper straw that turns to cardboard mash in your mouth is perfectly calibrated to make you feel like you are doing real penance without encumbering anything economically important.

So plastic straw bans (instead of plastic slipper bans, plastic food packaging bans, taxes on plastic clothes fibres...) are what we get. And because the structure of the cause/problem is the same, the language of environmentalism naturally attaches itself and gives form to the vague sense of moral unease surrounding AI. Governments are surely already building tomorrow's tightly integrated thought police drone swarm complexes, but a crusade against those who simulate a zoo of programming weasels in our midst is much easier and morally no less fulfilling.

Unfortunately, all it will take is an appropriate choice of story about "Nazis"/"child predators"/"pirates"/"terrorists"/"Russian bots" sideloading unregulated apps or disabling the GPS trackers on their cars, and every prospective member of Doctorow's great new coalition (including most everyone in attendance when the talk was given) can be peeled away with ease.

Well, I don't see anything obvious to criticise about what your interlocutors posted; their statements seem plausible enough to me, and if there is actually a knockout argument against them, I don't know it, because the person who seemed to disagree (you) was busy making childish noises instead of making it!

> jet fuel/steel beams

This debate was carried out sufficiently publicly that I got the sense people actually ran experiments confirming the pro-beam softening/structural failure/whatever case; certainly the "truther" case should have been taken seriously before that, and with decorum always because there is no situation in which any debate in a moderatable forum benefits from playground behaviour.