stinkbeetle
> You may have different intent but that is what your wrote. These representatives are the voice of the people,
That's the problem. They speak in their own interests.
> if you limit their power then Google can build datacenters without even needing to ask.
"You shouldn't purge corrupt politicians and bureaucrats because they increase the cost of doing business."
Incredible. Truly.
Western politicians and political parties incentives are to get elected while doing as much as possible for special interests (and by extension, as little as possible for the common good).
1. You were wrong about the first amendment providing protection from libel / defamation action.
2. You were wrong about damage not existing or not applying because the person has a certain amount of wealth or holds public office.
3. What you have written above is regurgitating what I already explained to you in other posts. As you can see, it is I who have laid it out for you. That you couldn't bring yourself to reply to my other post that educated you is telling.
Again, if you want to make a useful point or observation about the case, the idiotic internet gotchas and stupid rhetorical questions do not do that. You really can't fathom what possible damages a person whose success relies on public perception and who spends money to improve their public image could possibly suffer by being defamed? Please.
Or, you might consider it a moral issue but may not believe that shunning is not the way to achieve a positive result. Also not a failure of integrity.
> "Pay no attention to the men who are responsible for you situation, instead pointlessly fight amongst yourselves."
Maybe so, but that advice is for the western left, who openly and boastfully despises the working class these days. They might have thought about that if they wanted any "working class solidarity". It's been a staggering achievement either incompetence or coordinated malice that they could flip the balance of blue collar voters to right-wing parties in a generation. They chose who they wanted to lie with.
"Thank you for correcting my misconceptions about the first amendment and civil disputes." Would have been sufficient.
> I'm saying it's going to be really hard to prove damages.
No you weren't saying that, we can see exactly what you said and it was just garbage. If you have some substantive contribution and opinion about the damages claims in the lawsuit and what it would take to prove them that would be great. The low effort worthless rhetorical questions didn't add anything though, other than to make you sound more clueless.
> if someone did prove MOND
How could MOND be proven if it is disproven? Is there a chance it is not really disproven, or you mean the equations for forces might still be modified in a way that fits observations? Or that it could be MOND plus something else?
> When you say "physicists discover a much more logical explanation" that's what you're talking about.
I wonder what is illogical or band-aid feeling about matter that interacts with gravity but not other forces though. Why would all types of matter interacting with electromagnetism and strong nuclear forces be logical
Aside, using civil courts to attack opponents is certainly a problem, but in USA it favors the speaker a compared to a lot of other countries. In US the plaintiff has to prove the speech is false and for public figures that there was malice. Which in my opinion goes a bit too far and gives media corporations more power over politicians and other public matters. I think the public figure stipulation is reasonable and important to allow private citizens to discuss politicians and public matters so that's good, but I think there should be a counter to that which requires organizations reporting the news to have more duty to report truth and not mislead.
State censors in western countries are becoming increasingly brazen and desperate. Despite the Orwellian slogans about "safety" they all constantly recite, their objectives are securing the supremacy of the regime not the interests of the people.
It is, the government can not prevent or punish people speaking on the basis that the government decides it was misleading.
A civil dispute between private parties is entirely different though. One can be found liable for misleading speech that causes damage to another party.
> The president is trying to throw his weight around because he thinks his fans will like it. He's an idiot.
I'm not. And you can think what you like, but this a non-sequitur even if it was true.
> My point is superintelligence will cause post-scarcity the likes of which have never before been seen in history,
We are well in post-scarcity by some placements of those goalposts. Many advancements in production have caused gains never before seen in history.
> precisely because it's not humans making the decisions anymore.
Humans ceased making decisions about lots of means of production that they previously had to. What is it about SI you think will make the difference? It won't be deciding to give away its owners' wealth.
> Or it will kill us all, one of the two is almost guaranteed.
Neither is likely at all. It's much more likely to be like the industrial or computer revolutions.
And we're much more likely to go extinct by a death cult creating germ weapons than at the hands of "SI". They'd no doubt use LLMs and other technology to help with that, but the technology would not be making decisions about anything.
Which is what? Something being complex or not by your arbitrary definition does not cause it to have an impact on society.
> Post-scarcity is not defined how you are defining it so you are arguing against a straw man,
No that's right, I am pointing out where the post scarcity people are always wrong about their utopian result where capitalism dissolves, and always move the goalposts because their are staggeringly and willfully ignorant about humanity.
> it's not where anyone can have anything infinitely.
Right. The bigger problem for the utopia is that it is also not where anyone can have the things they really really badly want and are angry and envious and resentful of "capitalism" if they are not given it.
That's a different question, I was answering your earlier question.
> They can do stuff faster or stronger but aren't more complex and require humans to use them.
Self driving harvesters and lights out factories do not.
> Superintelligence does not require humans at all.
Depends on what you mean by require, and what you imagine it does. What are you trying to argue? The effect is the same, if you had to produce something using 10,000 human hours 100 years ago and it costs 1 human hour now, then that might have caused a much bigger change for society than going from 1->0.
Post-scarcity won't be a thing, and superintelligence certainly won't make it. It's not because people don't have their basics met, they do. Global poverty has plummeted and in western countries people don't starve to death -- poor people are actually obese. "Oh but if they could just be a bit more comfortable without working", "oh but if they could just be given a bit better food and clothes without working", "oh but iphone and internet should be a human right without working"... No. That's well and good but that isn't the problem. As I said the problem is that people don't have enough. People want big houses in the best areas of the most desirable cities and leisure locations. Superintelligence won't suddenly give everybody that wants it Manhattan penthouses and private jets and their own tropical islands, so there will always be people feeling they don't have enough, and people unwilling to have less. That's just the way it goes. There is no technological solution to it.
Many many times. Guns can hunt and fight better than unarmed humans. Automobiles can transport people and things much more quickly than humans on foot. Computers can perform mathematical calculations, store and organize information far faster than any human. Mechanical textile and sewing machinery could make clothing far more quickly than any human by hand.
> Superintelligence is a different beast entirely to anything from human history.
Like each of those above inventions and many more things, all were their own different beasts.
From sewing, tending, harvesting, and processing plants for food by hand to using machinery and factories and chemicals, the human effort per calorie of food has decreased at least 3 maybe 4 orders of magnitude. 9,999 in 10,000 farming jobs have been lost to technology! Anywhere you look, the story is the same. Transport, construction, communication, lighting, heating and cooling, medicine, entertainment have all gone through unimaginable revolutions over the years, all have been entirely different to anything else in human history, all created tectonic shifts in humanity and how we live and organize. What we create and produce has multiplied thousands of times.
One constant throughout all this is that people generally don't feel they have enough and don't want to have less. It's not just a few billionaires and corrupt politicians and CEOs at the top who just need to be disposed of before we enter the kumbaya age. It's the human condition. Do people give away the income from their labor and their productive assets today? Why would they tomorrow?
Does it use vector? What can you hit with SMT disabled?
I don't think it is that basic. If anything it's probably more about having protection from trade and sanction threats, and insulation from shortages, supply chain problems.
> Nothing about this changes that IMO. They're still getting the chips fabbed somewhere else and run the same risks.
It certainly changes it. Chip design is of enormous importance and the technology leaders there are concentrated in the USA.
Silicon manufacturing is a different thing. Japan is also trying to bring up sovereign leading(ish) edge manufacturing. Obviously you keep peeling the onion on everything though - to do digital logic they need EDA tools and quite possibly IP blocks for PCI and DDR and so on. To do manufacturing they need scanners from ASML and a process design from IBM and so on... It doesn't mean that because they can't do everything from the ground up that it's pointless. At some point they need to import coal and iron ore and bauxite.
It can be very interesting and even entertaining to know where models don't do well. I don't find something like chess to be very instructive about anything though, nobody is going to pay for AI to play chess at any significant scale even if it could do it perfectly.
> The author of the originating post says that "current frontier models need laborious oversight and guardrails on even the simplest tasks", and he's absolutely correct.
I have found that not to be the case, and I am not an AI power user or cheerleader by any means. There's probably a bunch of even "simplest" tasks where AI doesn't do well and might never. That doesn't take away from the cases where it works well and is a productivity booster. It doesn't even have to be solving millennium prizes or any other breakthrough creativity or reasearch, it's still very useful in places.
Bad things have caused degrowth, that doesn't refute what I said though. The Edo Period in Japan is said to be a canonical example of degrowth that was not catastrophic. Japan today has had GDP per capita pretty steady for the past 35 years and so far nothing horrific, just the hilarious wailing and gnashing of teeth from western "experts". So I think those are sufficient counter-examples.
> I agree on the first two, but I believe that an expectation of the third is foundational to the post-Enlightenment social order. It has waxed and waned, and there have obviously been incredibly dark periods, but we've usually returned to "things will be better in the future" as a setpoint.
1. Have we, really?
2. Various objective and subjective quality of life metrics have been going backwards in some western countries for a generation now.
3. What about it is it that you think is foundational to social order? What happens if we don't have it.?
In any case it's an unsustainable expectation that is going to have to change one way or another.
If we're going by feelings and anecdotes, my feeling is that people in general don't actually need that at all. They want some amount of fairness, freedom, self-determination, and the ability to personally get ahead. They don't need to be ahead of where their parents were at the same age, they want to be able to be ahead of where they were yesterday (at least in economic terms).
You don't need to be some kind of super genius to understand this, if you have not been sucked in to the populist left wing propaganda about petroleum. We can't even replace petroleum for energy right now, let alone all its other uses.
It's not just oil we'll have issues with either, lots of minerals could easily see shortages and rapidly increasing costs to extract over this century.
> We are doomed.
More propaganda. We don't need infinite economic growth, infinite population growth, or even continued quality of life growth. Nothing bad even happens when you have degrowth, it's all crazy propaganda that people repeat we need to keep boosting up population numbers.
A few generations ago nobody on earth ever saw a motor car for the entire history of humanity. Or electricity. Antibiotics. Synthetic fertilizers. Any kind of plastic.
Things will change, people will adapt, conflict and famine, etc. Much the same as the rest of human history. The people of the future might no lot be able to expect to be clothed, fed, housed, and entertained in exchange for sitting around an air-conditioned office eating a birthday cake before putting in their solid 2.5 hours of work for the day drawing up the next draft of policies around who can use which bathroom before scrolling tiktok for the rest of the work day. But I wouldn't call that "doomed".
> Yes possibly so I'd have to see the evidence for [thing A]
> Oh no, I don't need evidence [for thing B]
I hope this clears everything up for you. Let me know if you're struggling with anything else and I'll try to dumb it down for you even more.