Re:"Doomsday: Friday, 13 November, A.D. 2026 (1960)
by dnlgrmm on Friday November 13, 2026 @09:05AM
(#50483675)
You left out my first sentence when re-reading, though. My final sentence was not only referring to the one before it. Try increasing your context window, or read it like this:
"Beautifully shows how most predictions that extrapolate from past data are too simplistic. [...] Which is why I'm not worried about superintelligence or data centers in space."
Re:"Doomsday: Friday, 13 November, A.D. 2026 (1960)
by program_whiz on Friday November 13, 2026 @10:00AM
(#50484533)
yes, I read the first sentence, it was the point of contradiction in your other two. My friend, I don't doubt you have reasons to believe what you think, but your comment as worded is self-contradicting and lacking those reasons.
Re:"Doomsday: Friday, 13 November, A.D. 2026 (1960)
by jst1fthsdys on Friday November 13, 2026 @05:16PM
(#50490782)
They said they think extrapolation is too simplistic of a method. Then said that is why they don't agree with the pushed extrapolation of LLMs becoming SI.
This is addressing the commonly repeated line of thinking that assumes LLM capability will continue to see the improvements that have been seen in the past so far.
R>C>P
The only other point you made was "don't extrapolate too simply from past examples". Your extrapolation was "we're at peak population when the line seemed to point towards population explosion, therefore we won't hit superintelligence."
Had you used clear analysis, reasoning, or argumentation rather than just baseless extrapolation (peak population, therefore superintelligence can't happen), I wouldn't have chuckled at your self-contradicting comment.
"In the past, the US government has always been able to take on more debt even when people projected it would run out, therefore we'll always be able to have more intelligence until we reach super-intelligence" is the same (and equally invalid reasoning) you presented.