G_z9

This is the most convoluted way of disparaging Tesla I’ve ever seen. Congratulations

This. This comment is the best comment in the world. And this moment is the best moment of my life.

Comment engineer. It’s a job that’s already been made redundant by prompt engineers. A prompt engineer can spin up hundreds of comments in seconds that would have taken dozens of comment engineering man hours. We should also be worried about legal engineers and legislation engineers.

Prompt engineering. Just stick engineering at the end of your job description and all your self consciousness about how useless you are will go away.

Yes I’ve figured out the timer. As a 2010 account, I kind of have to just yield to you.

Ok, that’s not unreasonable. But I think that making an unrelated comment like that is really only a bad thing if it’s in bad faith. He made that comment expecting a response, I’m not like hounding him. And yes, I said some rude things. Are you going to downvote every comment that you see from me because some other comments I made were rude? Doesn’t really add up. And why are you policing the threads? That’s more weird than asking for a twitter space.

I don’t think asking for a twitter space is all that weird. I am constantly frustrated talking with people on HN because what could take 2 seconds takes 20 minutes. I often find that a debate never even has a chance to be resolved because everyone just gets worn out trying to talk through a digital straw. Plus, asking for a twitter space doesn’t involve exchange of personal information or anything concerning. It’s definitely not done and off the wall but I don’t think it’s problematic.

Edit: the more I think about it, the more sense it makes. HN has a problem with being flooded with vitriol and and lots of other negative behavior, long chains that are just useless. It would make a lot of sense to offload most of that to another platform since HN as a platform is not well suited to debating. Instead of initiating a huge chain of vitriol, a twitter space could be initiated when people want to debate something. Instead of tons of noise and garbage, HN would host a link to the space. And it would be better because the nature of a space lends itself to people coming to a conclusion, covering the issue more thoroughly and people letting loose less hate, all because of the high bandwidth, intimate nature of real-time audio. It also helps filter out people who are bots or aren’t serious or who don’t really care about the topic being debated. I am legitimately going to email HN admin about this.

I guess the respond button has a timer nowadays. Anyway, come debate me in twitter spaces. @fff_0x

How this gets downvoted is beyond me

Yeah, I’m being downvoted by a bot or something.

Guy from the other thread. No respond button for some reason. Listen man, your points fall flat for me again. I am coming from a position of intellectual honesty and good faith when I say I would rather debate this in a twitter space. Not just because it’s high bandwidth but also because I think people should be debating a topic this important in a way that’s more genuine than idiotic message board posts. @fff_0x

Yeah, people are pathetic. I get a ton of people using ad hominem, like you, and other coward tactics to shortcut the actual substance of the issue, and it’s pathetic. Especially in the context of a serious problem threatening society. I won’t go through your comment history because I’m not a pathetic coward and it doesn’t have anything to do with the matter at hand. F* you

This is absurd. He’s saying that human obsolescence can’t be real because we have fully autonomous vehicles already and humans are made to drive them. First of all, no we don’t have them. Second of all, if we had a system that didn’t make mistakes then we would let that system drive instead of a human, obviously. There is no such system to point to to contradict me. This entire argument is stupid. Humans won’t be employed to do things that machines can do better. 99.9999% of cloth is weaved. Y machines, not humans. By your logic there should be a human manning each loom.

Go outside? Go back to Reddit you retard and don’t come back until you’re graduated from high school.

Is time magazine delusional? They published an article that is almost word for word what I put forward here. In 2018 I said gtp would lead to an explosion of AI and that AI was getting out of control. I was universally dismissed by idiots like you who insinuate that I’m insane. Well, now everyone in the 1st world knows the name GTP and people are talking about these problems in the news, talking about how AI may be getting out of control. Do you know how crazy it is to have an idea like that and then see it explode into public awareness? It’s frustrating. If you think my ideas are wrong then enter a twitter space or phone call with me and we can come to a conclusion. Your characterization of my comments as being delusional is dishonest and cowardly.

This is ducking insane. How are people not up in arms about this? Imagine if the guy who invented recombinant insulin stated publicly that he intended to capture the entire medical sector and then use the money and power to reshape society by distributing wealth as he saw fit. That’s ducking insane and dangerous. This guy has lost his fucking mind and needs to be stopped.

UBI wont work. It’s intrinsically unstable in the context of AGI. UBI will prevent the inevitable for a very short time before collapsing.

The other outcome is the most likely if AGI isn’t stopped. But the problem with that is that in the context of AGI, a world dominated by and inhabited by AGI creatures, human society becomes transient. Again, just delaying the inevitable. Human society is not transient now because no matter what happens, no matter what entity dominates the world, it has to have a human society embedded inside of it because human beings are the only and best source of intelligent signal. When that is no longer true, humanity will be effectively terminated. All other propositions besides stopping AGI are just delay tactics.

No, your mental gymnastics are way too intense even for full blown AGI. You’re pathetic.

Dude what are you even talking about. If you want to continue this conversation then we have to talk on the phone or twitter spaces or something with higher bandwidth because this is wearing out my thumbs.

You’re contradicting yourself. You say there are fully autonomous vehicles but they aren’t capable of autonomously driving themselves fully. Ie they aren’t fully autonomous. So that aren’t any fully autonomous vehicles.

Ok so now you’re saying that AGI is impossible. That’s a completely different argument. And it’s wrong to reject regulation based on that argument because it can’t be proven. So you can’t reject regulation that way and you can’t reject it with your idea about humans having intrinsic value. So you are forced to support regulation of AI.

Answer the question

Your mental gymnastics are Olympic level. Yes, when companies are hiring they do in fact choose the best candidate. They have to or they will go out of business. They also have to do things in the most efficient way that they can or else someone else will and then they will no longer be competitive. This is literally how the world works. You are insanely thick.

So now you’ve moved the goal posts once again, wow. Do you realize that these models didn’t even exist 5 years ago? Are you familiar with the fact that things improve with time? And that technology ratchets forward, not backward. We are talking about a world where AI will improve to the point of being AGI but you don’t think it will improve to the point of using less energy than it currently does?

This is getting tiring. I can’t type out these comments forever. If you want to continue this conversation, let’s do a phone call or twitter space or something with more bandwidth.

Statistically, you think that regulating AI is pointless because another country will just push forward. So that’s not true? You think AGI should be prevented?

Yes and we also feed dogs that have no labor input. And we harp on about social justice which is not totally related to labor. We have many nice things because we currently live in a human society and humans need to have nice things in order to be healthy and productive. Throwing old people into a giant blender as soon as they were no longer useful would not be advantageous.

Your argument is that humans don’t need electricity. You could also add that humans are self replicating or self assembling. These are advantages in cost and efficiency. Humans won’t be the cheapest or the most efficient for very long after AGI. And we certainly won’t be the best fit economically even if we were slightly better in some ways. You’re in complete denial. Why is it so hard to admit the plain and obvious fact that the machines won’t be good for human society?

There is no such thing as a fully autonomous vehicle. There are only highly autonomous vehicles that require a human to be present in the case of an emergency, ie trains. That will no longer be the case. The AIs will eventually be much better at handling emergencies, driving, everything than humans.

Which country in history had a habit of truly passing up on hugely significant economic or military resources based on some principled idea? None. Because all the ones that did couldn’t survive. You really are going to try to argue that geopolitics is powered by virtue?

It’s the premise of a shitty fictional book. Of course it’s possible. When humans are the best source of zero labor tasks, our economic value will be reduced to nothing and society will no longer cater to us. It’s bad.

Why will we need to sell things to people if people have zero economic input/value?

This is completely wrong. By the logic of deniers like you, if any country doesn’t allow AIs to do such jobs because of legal or liability reasons, then some other country will. There is nothing stopping complete redundancy except progress in research. So can you finally confront the question if that is something that you actually want?

This is great. With every step forward, with every ounce of precedent that is created, more people will see that they aren’t wrong to be worried or want regulation. Really nice to have a bit of good news finally. Maybe that bastard Sam Altman will come to his senses soon.

There is no discourse you fucking idiot because everyone is rejecting the obvious. That’s like saying you discovered fire and then they say you didn’t because where is the discourse. All things start small. Think from first principles. Use your fucking head

This comment is mind blowing

Yeah, there aren’t experts in something that doesn’t exist. That means we have to make an educated guess. By far the most rational course of action is to halt AI research. And then you say there’s no proof that we are on the path to AGI or that it would harm us. Yeah, and there never could be any proof for either side of the argument. So your dismissal of AI is kind of flaccid without any proof or rational speculation or reasoning. Listen man I’m not a cynical commenter. I believe what I’m saying and I think it’s important. If you really think you’re right then get on the phone with me or video chat so we can actually debate and settle this.

Well, AGI is detrimental to literally all humans. If everyone understood the facts then everyone would vote for solutions. As it becomes more and more obvious we are getting closer to this.

If one of the many close calls had gone a little differently and a city were nuked accidentally, it would cause a global outcry and there would be yet another international effort to reduce the global nuclear stockpile to zero. And there’s a very good chance it would succeed. At the very start there was actually an agreement to not initiate a nuclear arms race but the Russians went back on it. So, for something that is “impossible”, we seem to see signs of it all the time.

The reason you think it’s impossible is because most things aren’t like this. Most things benefit some people and harm other people. This harms all people. Be a part of the solution instead of dismissing real solutions when you have no logical reason for doing so.