In the law, yes; in philosophy, no. Or so I argue over at Substack. Malcolm Pollack ‘incited’ the article with his comment:
I think the burden [the BOP] would be on whoever asserts that my chats with Claude aren’t actually conversations, and I think it would be very difficult to demonstrate without begging the very question we’re wrangling over in this thread.
It’s Saturday night, time to punch the clock, have me a Jack and Coke, and dinner with Mark Levin who, like Trump, is blind to the AI downside. More on that later.
And seeing as how it’s Saturday night, who put the BOP in the “bop shoo bop shoo bop”?
A persuasive post, and I think it has shifted the burden of proof onto those who still think the BOP matters.