While I found the summary of computational consciousness useful, the author infected their prose with dreadfully pompous judgements. The final straw was the author's declaration of boredom. Such obnoxious writing is unworthy of, and distracts from the subject matter. How did such wasteful and intolerant writing get upvoted? The original article surely has much more value than this painful summary.

I really enjoy the doublespeak of "reality has a liberal bias". I can't think of a more telling and compelling example of the distortion caused by the binary lens of American politics.

I liked betamax better, sorry. The tapes were more compact and used less storage space. Can't argue with that. I also liked that you could use betamax with a Sony PCM F1 processor to record digital audio before the advent of the DAT format (digital audio tape). Can't argue with that. But when was the last time I even thought about betamax? Much more front of mind are the vagaries of blu-ray formats; and I rarely think about them either.

As dangerous as it seems to Americans steeped in turbulent politics, a democracy can indeed steer itself to a single effective choice. An American just has two choices (Coke or Pepsi, donkey or elephant) usually anyway -- this demonstrates a very similar refinement of choice.

There are problems with so called "even-handedness", particularly when sharing empirical data which can be interpreted as politically aligned. If I query a large language model (LLM) requesting data regarding global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels and its impact on climate, I don't believe it appropriate for 50% of the response be dedicated to the point of view proffered by 5% of climate scientists. I would instead prefer to receive details on the political alignment of the foundations and corporations funding those 5%. So called "even-handedness" often becomes "false equivalence", where an ordinarily untenable belief unbacked by reality is reified for political ends.