If you can't believe even in a possibility, how can you do science? How can one even formulate a hypothesis and attempt to falsify it without in the first place believing in some potential outcome?
Skepticism requires an open mind to ongoing evidence and change of circumstances, not one proclaiming outright that 'belief' in itself can be a problem.
This rush to disbelief AI sentience is just as bad as those who proclaim outright that AI has reached the level of sentience. Neither, if you notice, constitutes a proper approach to science.
Believe is a strong word that anchors you to an expected outcome. I _suspect_ that there may be a potential outcome, but I would not _believe_ it without first designing and conducting at least one experiment. For me, belief comes after experimentation and analysis of the outcome, never before.
If you can't believe even in a possibility, how can you do science? How can one even formulate a hypothesis and attempt to falsify it without in the first place believing in some potential outcome?
Skepticism requires an open mind to ongoing evidence and change of circumstances, not one proclaiming outright that 'belief' in itself can be a problem.
This rush to disbelief AI sentience is just as bad as those who proclaim outright that AI has reached the level of sentience. Neither, if you notice, constitutes a proper approach to science.