I've used Ableton for about 12 years before making the switch to bitwig, it's the best thing I've ever done.
There are very, very few Ableton features that I miss. The only thing I can think of is the automations rescaling I wish Bitwig would implement, otherwise it's vastly superior to Ableton in any other way. Especially the bounce/audio editing workflow, this thing makes me 2 to 3 times faster than when using Ableton (no hyperbole)
The subject of the thread is "Will my code be regurgitated if I put it on Github ? Should I avoid putting my code on Github if I don't want it copied?"
The legality aspect that you are injecting into the discussion is irrelevant
The "people all look the same" part is absolutely ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of people I pass by in the streets look nothing like these people (in fact, I can't even remember the last time I saw someone who looked like that in real life)
The rest of the article isn't much better in my opinion: it cites only anecdotal evidence, and it says nothing about the past state of affairs despite the title of the article being about "the age of" something.
The same goes for interiors really. Instead of looking at AirBnB, which is biased, have a browse in any real estate website, where you can see picture of places regular people actually live in. Most of them aren't curated and well presented, instead an eclectic hodgepodge put together over the years, with very little in common with the AirSpace aesthetic.
I don't personally see a major problem with your reasoning (sorry to not teach you anything new). Consciousness could be very well due to a process we don't know about yet, and disrupting this process would indeed consistently lead to a lapse in conscious experience.
The only thing is, we wouldn't know just yet if there are other ways for matter to organize itself as a conscious being. Best we can do for now is to learn about the type of consciousness that we animals on earth experience.
You're turning the burden of proof on itself. The authors claim that humans are only algorithms, it's their job to prove it before mounting an argument based on it.
The authors assume the idea for launching an argument, but OP assumes the opposite idea. There's no point to contrasting each other because they are both unproved. At least the web page gaves some reasons why you should entertain the idea.
The authors make the claim that "You are just an algorithm implemented on biological hardware."
This claim needs to be substantiated before anything that follows can be taken seriously.
Another underlying assumption needs to be proven: that our conscious experience is only due to computation and nothing else.
What if the answer "yes, I am conscious" was computed by hand instead of using a computer, (even if the answer takes years and billions of people to compute it) would you still accept that the language model is sentient ?
We're still a bit far from this scientifically, but to the best of my knowledge, there's nothing preventing us from following "by hand" the activation pattern in a human nervous system that would lead to phrasing the same sentence. And I don't see how this has anything to do with consciousness.
Just to clarify,I wasn't implying simulation, but rather something like single-unit recordings[0] of a live human brain as it goes about it. I think that this is the closest to "following" an artificial neutral network, which we also don't know how to "simulate" short of running the whole thing.
In the absence of any element pointing to the partiality of the judges, one cannot assume this was politically motivated