No offense, but I get the sense that you don't actually know how ML works and you're just familiar with pop science descriptions of it. Am I wrong?

It's an incredibly bold claim to say that a human brain is doing something an AI could never do. That is a very antiquated notion, to the point that I would say it's 100% devoid of any critical thinking.

Now if you're arguing that there is a supernatural plane of some kind that cannot be measured in any way, and is fully responsible for our consciousness, then that's a different story, there's nothing I can say to change your mind.

There is so so so so so much more to human experience, life experience, and just being alive than simply absorbing "content."

That's the thing though, it's all the same "content" to a living brain. Your brain doesn't distinguish between your lived experiences and watching cat videos, the experience of watching those videos is also a lived experience.

I know it's tempting to say humans (or living creatures) are special and unique in their ability to experience emotions and consciousness etc, but the reality is, you're a biological machine. You take inputs via various senses, chemical reactions happen throughout your body, and the illusion of memory and experience is created. Now either prove to me that this phenomenon is not replicable in a lab or virtual setting, or get off your high horse and join the actual discussion that needs to happen.

Just because it's weird to you doesn't make it any less valid.

As a species we sit at the threshold of artificial life, created by us. Seems silly to think that such a monumental jump would not be accompanied by substantial changes in our made up rules of engagement.

If the person then makes money off it: yes.

Every idea you've ever profited from was inspired by something you saw in the past. That's my point. There are no ideas that exist entirely within a vacuum, they all stem from something else, we just draw a line arbitrarily and say "this idea is too much like that other idea". But if you combine 3 other ideas into something that is sufficiently non-obvious (which is entirely relative) then we call it "novel" and "original".

I think the line should probably be, either it's a tool and you need to license any work it references, OR it's conscious, has rights, gets paid, and is a person. I think most tech companies would much rather stay in the former camp, not having to answer any ethical dilemmas if they don't have to. But on the other hand, the first company to make something that people consider actually "conscious" will make history.

You are comparing a computer program to a human. Which… is weird.

Sounds like you have about 100 years of philosophical discussion, AI research, and scifi to catch up on 😄.