it would hold the same meaning as now, which is nothing.

this is automatic writing with a computer. no matter what you train on, you’re using a machine built to produce things that match other things. the machine can’t hold opinions, can’t remember, can’t answer from the training data. all it can do is generate a plausible transcript of a conversation and steer it with input.

one person does not generate enough data during a lifetime so you’re necessarily using aggregated data from millions of people as a base. there’s also no meaning ascribed to anything in the training data. if you give it all a person’s memories, the output conforms to that data like water conforms to a shower nozzle. it’s just a filter on top.

in regards to the final paragraph, i want computers to exhibit as little personhood as possible because i’ve read the transcript of the ELISA experiments. it literally could only figure out subject-verb-object and respond with the same noun as it was fed, and people were saying it should replace psychologists.