Intelligence is a human-made term to describe an abstract phenomenon - it’s not a concrete thing but a spectrum. On one end of that spectrum is a rock: it doesn’t do anything, it just is. On the opposite end lies what we call superintelligence. Somewhere in between are things like a mouse, a sunflower, a human, a large language model, and a dolphin. All of these display some degree of intelligent behavior. It’s not that one is intelligent and another isn’t - it’s that some are more intelligent than others.

While it’s true that we don’t fully understand how intelligence works, it’s false to say we don’t understand it at all or that we’re incapable of creating intelligent systems. The chess opponent on the Atari is an intelligent system. It can acquire, understand, and use information - which fits one of the common definitions of intelligence. It’s what we call a narrow intelligence, because its intelligence is limited to a single domain. It can play chess - and nothing else.

Humans, on the other hand, are generally intelligent. Our intelligence spans multiple independent domains, and we can learn, reason, and adapt across them. We are, by our own definition, the benchmark for general intelligence. Once a system reaches human-level intelligence, it qualifies as generally intelligent. That’s not some cosmic law - it’s an arbitrary threshold we invented.

The reason this benchmark matters is that once something becomes as intelligent as we are, it no longer needs us to improve itself. By definition, we have nothing more to offer it. We’ve raised the tiger cub to adulthood - and now it no longer needs us to feed it. It’s free to feed on us if it so desires.

You’re completely missing the point. It honestly sounds like you want them to keep pursuing AGI, because I can’t see any other reason why you’d be mocking the people arguing that we shouldn’t.

How close to the nuclear bomb do researchers need to get before it’s time to hit the brakes? Is it really that unreasonable to suggest that maybe we shouldn’t even be trying in the first place? I don’t understand where this cynicism comes from. From my perspective, these people are actually on the same side as the anti-AI sentiment I see here every day - yet they’re still being ridiculed just for having the audacity to even consider that we might actually stumble upon AGI, and that doing so could be the last mistake humanity ever makes.

deleted by creator

Flashlights really do seem like an endless rabbit hole to sink into. They’re surprisingly affordable too - there are tons of Chinese models in the 30–60 euro range that outperform name brands costing over 100 euros.

You could even turn it into a challenge: try to research the absolute best everyday carry flashlight for yourself and see if it arrives in the mail before you’ve already found a better alternative.

this is hypothetical

And we wish to keep it that way - thus the people advocating for halting the development.

What do these people have to profit from getting what they’re asking for? They’re advocating for pulling the plug on that cow.

In my view, a true AGI would immediately be superintelligent because even if it wasn’t any smarter than us, it would still be able to process information at orders of magnitude faster rate. A scientist who has a minute to answer a question will always be outperformed by equally smart scientist who has a year.

I genuinely don’t understand the people who are dismissing those sounding the alarm about AGI. That’s like mocking the people who warned against developing nuclear weapons when they were still just a theoretical concept. What are you even saying? “Go ahead with the Manhattan Project - I don’t care, because I in my infinite wisdom know you won’t succeed anyway”?

Speculating about whether we can actually build such a system, or how long it might take, completely misses the point. The argument isn’t about feasibility - it’s that we shouldn’t even be trying. It’s too fucking dangerous. You can’t put that rabbit back in the hat.

Putting holes in people is what guns are for. If you don’t intend to do that, don’t use a gun - that’s what hand-to-hand combat training, batons, tasers and pepper spray are for.

There’s also a moral-hazard problem: rubber bullets can still be lethal, but the threshold for using them is lower, which could actually lead to more deaths, not fewer.

It feels like more and more people are taking pride in what they don’t do or what they aren’t, rather than in what they actually stand for. You see it in the people who brag about not using ChatGPT, not being on Twitter, not owning a car - or in those who define themselves by their hatred for others: the rich, meat eaters, republicans, whoever the current outgroup is.

It’s like their entire identity revolves around opposition. Their sense of belonging comes not from shared values, but from shared resentment. If the only thing that unites you with your tribe is who you hate, then you don’t really have much of a tribe - just a mob.

What’s most ironic is how many of these same people see themselves as independent thinkers, even though their views often are completely predictable once you know what they’re against. It’s as if they can’t even decide what they believe until they’ve first heard what “the enemy” thinks.

If you’re certain an “AI crash” is coming, then shorting AI companies is how you’d not only avoid the fallout but actually profit from it. That’s speculative investing though - basically gambling.

For everyone else without the ability to predict the future, the general advice stays the same: invest in low-cost, highly diversified index funds spread across sectors and regions. The markets are deeply interconnected, so it doesn’t really matter where you’re invested - when the market crashes, you’re getting hit. If you’re all in on tech, you’ll get hit hard; if you’re spread out, you’ll get hit less. But either way, you’ll feel it.

For someone in it for the long run, it doesn’t matter what the market’s doing. I just keep doing what I’ve always done - managing my finances carefully and investing my savings.

The main issue in Japan during the 90s was that the government refused to acknowledge the reality of the situation and let the market crash. Instead of allowing bankruptcies and bad loans to clear, they propped up banks and corporations for years - freezing growth and causing decades of deflation and stagnation. The real lesson from Japan isn’t about the crash itself, but about the response: avoiding short-term pain led to long-term paralysis.

If an AI bubble bursts, it would probably resemble the dot-com crash more than Japan’s experience. Central banks act much faster now, bad debt gets cleared out instead of buried, and the global economy isn’t built entirely on AI speculation. So even if valuations take a hard hit, a decades-long depression like Japan’s is very unlikely.

If you’re not invested in the stock market, you don’t lose anything when it crashes - and if you are invested, you only lose if you sell at a loss. I understand the anxiety around economic uncertainty after a crash, but I get the sense that many people don’t really understand how “losing one’s investments” actually works.

If someone is absolutely certain that a crash is coming, then now’s the perfect time to sell while we’re still at all-time highs - and buy the dip once the crash finally hits.

How did you handle previous stock market crashes, and why do you expect this time to be different? I’m heavily invested in the market, yet I’m not losing any sleep over the possibility of a crash - meanwhile, people who don’t even seem to invest are the ones worrying about it. I can’t help but wonder why that is.

If it bothers you that much, you can always just make a new account to lose the tail - because that’s exactly what they’ll do once you finally get them banned or whatever your endgame is.

Just block and move on. It’s an anonymous message board. Someone following you around and “vandalizing” your posts is completely meaningless. They’re wasting their time - you’ve already won.

Like reddit but mostly politics and no videos.

That’s money he found between his couch cushions. It’s a rounding error on his balance sheet.

People are desperately combing through comments, looking for something to be outraged about. That’s what happens in echo chambers - when the outgroup isn’t around to be attacked, people start eating their own. It turns into this insane purity spiral where nobody is ever good enough.

It’s way too early to say that I have fixed it yet, but I quit a severe, two decade long porn addiction and a decade long daily weed smoking cold turkey a little over month ago and haven’t looked back. I might go back to occasional weed smoking at some point once I’ve truly tasted what life feels like without but with porn I’m not sure if I can go back without it spiraling out of control again.

Fuck cancer!