Does it really matter? Less bad doesn’t mean good. We’re talking about the lives of innocent bystanders here. If taking additional risk is avoidable, it should be avoided.

Humans are highly adaptable for both good and bad. I’ve heard that even people who have lost their ability to see or walk are back at baseline happiness in about a year.

Measures of subjective well-being are higher among treated participants in the first year of the transfers but then revert to control group levels.

Biased is the tone I’m hearing there - not honest. I’d rather hear from someone not emotionally invested in the subject and I’m definitely not listening to anyone claiming to know what will happen. Some intellectual humility would be in place.

I can’t fit even half of my content filters into a single screenshot. And I have a separate list for filtering comments. There’s so much manual curation needed to make this platform barely tolerable.

Their training data taught them that the token “AI” is followed by a hostile reply. They just hand out the statistically likely next comment. They don’t actually understand anything. They’re mostly just pattern-detection machines working on probabilities.

I have no idea what you’re even talking about. Neither of these people is an AI researcher and neither is making the claims you’re here arguing against.

Anthropomorphizing them isn’t going to suddenly change reality…

No more than thought terminating clishes do.

Consciousness gets mentioned the first time at 1 hour and 26 minutes into the episode. The discussion is about cognition - they’re not the same thing and nobody is claiming that they are.

You can always ask but you can’t demand it. Taking photos of even a single individual without their consent in a public place is perfectly legal in most of Europe. What is not okay is publishing that image though even that isn’t automatically illegal. If you’re not the focus of the shot but you appear in the background in the crowd then that is okay to publish even if you say no.

Agreed. That’s why I keep referencing the toupee fallacy: it’s easy to detect AI slop because it’s slop but anything well-made flies under the radar. This leads many people to assume that everything made using AI is by default not good and conversely when something is good they falsely assume a human made it. I’d argue that virtually every devout AI hater has at some point enjoyed AI content because they failed to detect it as such.

So no, not all toupees look bad - you only notice the bad ones.

There’s also a Shrimp Welfare Project.

One could argue that this is even worse than pig farming due to the sheer scale of it and donating to them to enable painless death for the shrimp could be the most good you can do with your money when looking at how far even just one dollar gets you.

Who “everyone”?

I thought it’s pretty common knowledge that solar panels are more efficient in cold climate.

Well, if I’m going to pay what ever this thing costs then it better come with huge tits - and a dick!

Choosing to filter out content from your social media feed isn’t necessarily about denial or apathy. For many people, it’s a conscious decision to preserve their mental clarity and avoid being constantly pulled into emotionally charged, tribal, or manipulative discourse. Being well-informed doesn’t require immersing yourself in an endless stream of outrage, nor does stepping back from that mean you’re turning a blind eye to anything.

There’s a difference between ignoring reality and choosing how and when to engage with it. Most of what passes for “news” online isn’t a sober presentation of facts or ideas - it’s performance, manufactured outrage, and algorithm-driven noise. If someone wants to stay sane and focus on things they can actually influence in their immediate life, I don’t see that as sticking their head in the sand. I see it as setting healhy boundaries in an environment that’s often designed to provoke rather than inform.

People aren’t morally obligated to be constantly exposed to negativity just to prove they care. In fact, thoughtful action tends to come from those who can step back from the noise and think clearly, not from those who are perpetually consumed by it.

There’s some amazing stories of identical twins discovering eachother at later age. I believe the claim there was that it’s among the strongest bonds between humans that there is. You’ve never met before but when you do, it all immediately just clicks.

I guess the question that remains is: how much of that is due to being hit and how much due to having the genes of parents who hit their children?

I’d be curious to hear your reasoning on why you think it’s not inevitable because in my view it absolutely is, assuming that we don’t destroy ourselves before we get there.

Intelligence seems to be what explains why we’re the dominant species on the planet. It’s our most valuable asset and more of it always seems desirable. Every incentive we have points toward building more intelligent systems, and I don’t see us stopping. It might take a long time, but for as long as we keep improving the systems we’ll get there eventually. Creating an actual AGI would be the most powerful human invention ever - and also the last one - so in my view there’s no stopping. We’ll chase that for as long as it takes no matter the consequences. The payoff is just too great not to go after.

The audacity of some people… I simply cannot comprehend it. I’d feel so ashamed of myself.

Duplicates don’t add anything to the conversation

But it’s not the same person reporting the same bug multiple time but rather a new tool enabling multiple people to discover that same bug at the same time.

Not reporting it because “someone else probably will” is a sociopsychological phenomenon called diffusion of responsibility.