It does not. But it does make the world that little bit more annoying, like whenever someone posts anything about AI these days there’s that select few that love to pose those absurd “okay but we’re just electrical impulses too, how can we be sure LLMs aren’t actually conscious and alive too?” “”””philosophical”””” questions.

Things like these make my blood boil for how unserious and completely off-the-wall stupid they are.

Hell, someone the other day equated a plane to a bird because both can fly… this is the type of thing we ought to expect from children just learning what philosophy is. Not adults.

But we do say planes 'fly' and not invent another bogus word for it because a plane is not biological :)

In German an airship doesn't "fly", it "fährt". One could have reasonably invented new words for 'flying' depending on whether their motion is caused by flapping wings, buoyancy of light gases, rotating propellers, jet engines, or being fired out of a canon's barrel.

Colloquial German seems to largely use fliegt.

This is the thing about language, you can have strong opinions about it but language evolves through use. Historical attempts to stop this sort of natural drift has just resulted in dead languages nobody speaks like Sanskrit and Latin.

> dead languages nobody speaks like Sanskrit and Latin

There sure are dead languages but these two examples good they are not.

Next they'll tell you they can make life because we're all just an electrochemical soup.

Uh, huh. Sure we are.