As a wise man once said, the difference between a dialect and a language is that a language has an army and an navy

Similarly, I’ve been told that “te quiero mucho” can mean very different things depending on where you are

British English is quickly becoming Americanized… (at least according to my results a few years back https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.00781v1)

Most "Americanized" variations came from Britain itself, including those that come more directly from greek, or skipped French influence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_s...

A few years back I analyzed how (informal, social media) written Spanish differs from place to place and (re-)discovered that the vireynados were a thing a while back :)

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

I would argue that, before we can begin to address whether or not AI can instantiate consciousness, we should agree on a practical, unequivocal definition of what consciousness is... and I think we're still pretty far from that milestone... Until then, this kind of argument are nothing more than pipe dreams, solipsism, and idle philosophising

I think consciousness is a red herring and is being used to distract from the actual substantive question that must be resolved, which is whether or not a non-biological system which has outputs that cannot be meaningfully distinguished from that of a biological one deserves moral consideration.

I had the same initial thought but to be fair the paper addresses this explicitly and the author believes their argument can hold without fully understanding consciousness

Thank you