Ah yes, let’s more time entertaining the mad kings senile delusions while he remains incapable of taking responsibility.

No, I’ll agree with you in general, but I would also say that both sides are generally working for billionaires and operate generally as neoliberal parties. Biden even proudly confessed his capitalist convictions.

I don’t disagree that if this last election had gone differently we’d be in a different probably better position, but I also don’t think we have universal healthcare. Plenty more nuance to that than will fit in a comments section, but yes I agree but there’s a lot more to it and people hear democratic promises but don’t often see democratic action.

But also at this point it’s becoming less two neoliberal parties and more the neoliberal party and the fascist party, so yes I’ll 100% take the neoliberal over the fascist.

I think that’s a big reason many Americans don’t vote. It’s not really a choice, just the perception of a choice and the spectacle of a contest.

Just need to add in oracle, Palantir, and flock.

Why would he need to be given anything? Charge him a million for a happy meal. He’s a trillionaire, surely he can afford a measly island or two.

Why would he need to be given anything? Charge him a million for a happy meal. He’s a trillionaire, surely he can afford a measly island or two.

That’s crazy! I was certain republics would lick his boots till it literally killed them. Maybe the cult is breaking.

Also not all cops are friends.

He had AI write his rebuttal.

The money was never the problem.

Let the paranoid breakdown commence!

The “Christian” right should try reading the Bible more than listening to Fox News.

Thing is he’s a raving narcissist, so anyone who hates him is a monster. He can’t imagine decent people hate him. If you hate him, you’re the problem.

If democrats can be remembered for being a stumbling block to the onset of fascism, then that’s a success. Sure letting a law with national security implications slip is risky, but so is letting a fascist wield that law against the people.

Which is why online privacy is a big deal even if you don’t have “something to hide.” Use any of the plethora of other search options available besides Google. Use tracker blockers and link scrubbers whenever possible. Block any unnecessary cookies. And use fingerprint protection whenever possible. VPNs can be helpful in many cases too. No reason not to and it’s pretty quick and easy to do.

You make some interesting points, but I’ll respectfully differ.

It’s not inevitable in the sense that anything that can be changed through simple change in human behavior and is not bound to be the way it is by the laws of nature is by its very nature categorically not inevitable. Nuclear war might have looked inevitable a few decades ago, but a change in human behavior, recognizing the dangers, averted such a crisis. The ozone layer’s depletion seemed inevitable likewise, but humanity recognized the problem and changed behavior (while continuing to advance technologically) and averted this crisis as well. AI might be a slower burn than a nuclear blast, but the dangers are evident. All that is required is for humanity to rightly see the dangers and choose a different path.

Your second point is intriguing but in my estimation contradictory beneath the surface. If intelligence is the very defining point of humanity, then yes we are walking in our nature by pursuing more intelligently designed technology, ideas, arts, and sciences; using that intelligence to fuel curiosity and exploration.

If, however, AGI (assuming it is in fact possible) would be “the last invention,” why should we as a species pursue the end of a defining hallmark of our existence? Why pursue something that removes a thing that makes us us? How can we pursue it “no matter the consequences” if it costs us that? If it costs us the planet? If it costs us free thought? If it costs us humanity? What then would be the point?

I would also respectfully disagree with the underlying assumption that “every incentive we have points toward building more intelligent systems.” Each person has differing motivations. Much of our species just wants to live a peaceful life with enough food and shelter and good company. AI doesn’t do much for that, and the costs to company and climate are real and dire. Power pursues power. AI in its current form reeks of disrespect.

Just quick thoughts. Not looking for an Internet argument but happy to carry on a constructive conversation. Differing viewpoints help us be more human.

Reminder that AI like this is neither inevitable nor necessary.

Personally I wouldn’t trust a lawn chair engineered by AI…let alone anything consequential.

Wealth ≠ intelligence

I like tacos.