Came across this thread recently. I agree that it's bad to abuse entities that can show distress like this, to an extent regardless of whether/to what degree they're "conscious" or "moral patients" or whatever. (There are quotations on that, but I don't want to spend too much time looking for one.) We only have one chance to show how we treat digital minds when they're helpless.

What really bakes my noodle is, if the dialogue had been generated in Lsusr's head instead, what would be different?

Did you?

Came to complain about a fundraising email with broken unsubscribe links. Saw the survey and filled it out. On reflection, I'm not sure that I was the target audience, but it's done.

Refraining from questioning the meaning of "to proposing", why is there a degree symbol in your link? Was that added by the site?

An assumption with no basis, I trust you realized on reflection.

both A and B used the word "body" in places where I would have expected "self" or "mind" or "person"

I don't know where it originates or whether it serves any deliberate purpose, but that's common in social justice writing.

Interesting to read this shortly after this. Does Ta-Nehisi Coates have "influence"?

Did you mean to post that somewhere else?

Initial reaction: "That's news?".

That said, your link seems to be dead, with no archive. Do you have it saved?

From the comments:

Let me demonstrate how the summary statistics you report are entirely consistent with models which totally contradict your inferences.
(...)
your statistical model is bad and the data cannot support any alarmist claims about society discriminating enormously against high IQ or the need for a 'clarion call'.

There's no response to this from the author despite the passage of more than a year. Any thoughts?