(I'm joking, but.)
(A car is not a person, but.)
Transhumanist language is unhelpful here because these are not comparisons we should be making. Comparisons work both ways: when an argument is used to infer the superiority of an algorithm over a human, it diminishes / lessens the value of the human being -- an intentional or accidental affect of a Management Class utterance? (You tell me). These comparisons should be resisted or reframed.
Transhumanist language is helpful here because it assists in exposing ideas like the one above. In comparing a human being to a product, it suddenly becomes obvious that the human being is also seen by the utteree as a product or utility, otherwise the comparison is facile or misplaced.
(Is it possible that the car (like the notion of a 'person') is now becoming progressively dematerialised -- is it, increasingly now, merely a hollow functional language-object or 'shell' that holds a set of algorithms -- are its passengers, its engineered physicality becoming less important, less... 'there'? Are other product-objects also migrating into the realm of mere algorithm-container? Is a 'car' slowly becoming a car-shaped code-repository that does 'car-like' things? Other consumer objects - cookers, fridges, kettles, etc - along with wearables - data-collecting 'clothes', etc - might they not also be going the same way, slowly becoming less of what we thought they were, more hollowed-out, less 'present''? #objectpresence-erosion)