So this article does not actually defend its claim, it just gets mad that some AI researcher expressed their opinion, makes an unsourced (albeit probably correct) claim that the criticized opinion is a minority position, and wishes really strongly that people would be less excited about this thing that they are not as excited about.
Meanwhile in academic philosophy, it's totally OK to conjecture that, say, subatomic particles are ‘slightly conscious’ and nobody tries to tell them that they are not allowed to have an opinion.
Here's a hint, if you want to refute an idea, refute the actual idea, don't just tell the person in so many words that they don't have the social status to say it. Yes this post wound me up a bit, how could you tell?
Meanwhile in academic philosophy, it's totally OK to conjecture that, say, subatomic particles are ‘slightly conscious’ and nobody tries to tell them that they are not allowed to have an opinion.
Here's a hint, if you want to refute an idea, refute the actual idea, don't just tell the person in so many words that they don't have the social status to say it. Yes this post wound me up a bit, how could you tell?