Mentioning it would pattern-match to “science fiction” rather than “serious research” in the intended audience’s minds. It would cost them credibility.
How so? They should be thinking about it (meaning purposefully dodging it if they want to conceal thinking about it?)Personally, I doubt they are at that point yet at all.
They seem t be purposefully dodging talking about moral significance of the simulated brain, which is worrying...
Mentioning it would pattern-match to “science fiction” rather than “serious research” in the intended audience’s minds. It would cost them credibility.
IIRC, the Nature or Ars Technica article mentioned that something like 1% of the funds will be going to ethicists and philosophers.
How so? They should be thinking about it (meaning purposefully dodging it if they want to conceal thinking about it?)Personally, I doubt they are at that point yet at all.