While I have always tried to live my life by your assumed philosophy, I think they were simply saying that since (on average) a more expensive vehicle often means a more mechanically sound vehicle less likely to break down. It’s not just the peace in being less likely to have to deal with that situation, it is the stress when it occurs. If you have to buy a $1000 car, you aren’t likely to have savings sitting around available to you to fix your vehicle when something needs replacement every month or two. Knowing that entire situation is constantly looming is just another slice of the high background stress pie. Newer (more expensive) vehicles will tend to have more wear left on operational parts, so they tend to have less mechanical breakdowns and less parts that need be replaced. Many are the breakdowns that “could” happen with any vehicle, but a lot more are just parts wearing out from age; brakes here, CVs there, gas pump one day, a battery another. They all add up quickly, especially for someone who can’t fix their own car (a single mother of two just trying to get to her jobs, for example), especially when it not only costs you money, you may not even get paid because you couldn’t make it to work and had to call out (and if you’re lucky, don’t get fired because it has happened too much). That entire situation isn’t stress that you can just casually ignore — or at least, that was my experience while being poor.
Or if like PlayOn, they’ll simply replace your legacy lifetime license software with their new version that no longer does the core functionality that has to be kept up to date — recording different providers — without upgrading to their new extra-special monthly cloud licensing that replaces your “lifetime” license you bought to support their fledgling business. One thing is almost certain, any software claimed to be “Lifetime” will become a lie if given time and one should assume “lifetime” in software almost never means more than 5-10 years before a new executive has a bright idea to generate more revenue.
In fairness, I personally believe anyone who thinks that uncontrolled super-intelligence will be the automatic outcome is an absolute idiot likely to have a below-average IQ, but that probably leaves me and most people on equal footing with you in the “no one actually cares what your opinion is” race.
Apparently, some people lack the technical understanding that an AI, by itself, literally can’t do anything at all and that it is the tools and harnessing provided to an AI that allows it to perform any type of action. Given this is such basic and fundamental knowledge to anyone who even attempts to understand how they work, I can only assume they are incapable of understanding. I would love to hear the intelligent basis for your ideas on how disagreeing with stupidity makes them a traitor.
I’m happy to supply the low IQ take so that you understand it friend.
This whole comment thread is not asserting that uncontrollable superintelligence is the automatic outcome. It is that everyone should agree it is undesirable, hence why I said that part of the bill may as well be virtue signaling. Anybody who thinks an uncontrollable superintelligence which can and will likely disempower humanity is a traitor to humanity. This should be obvious.
I remember reading a study which determined one basic property shared by people of low intelligence is the inability to reason about hypotheticals. Let me walk through this slowly for you, as you are the one who said this, “ I personally believe anyone who thinks that uncontrolled super-intelligence will be the automatic outcome is an absolute idiot likely to have a below-average IQ”.
IF someone supports an uncontrollable superintelligence, THEN they have bad intentions for humanity (=traitor).
I understand that you don’t understand. Reiterating that doesn’t help.
No one, at all, at any point “supported” uncontrollable super-intelligence. They questioned your idiotic reasoning of how not believing in your ASSumed outcome makes them traitorous. Which you’ve still failed to be capable of recognizing, thus making it all the more humorous to read.
I understand that is what you’re doing, but I’m not sure why you’re doing it. Because I’ve explained to you multiple times I was just commenting that Bernie Sanders needn’t include this obvious point in the bill. However I guess he should since there are people like you out there who simply cannot grasp obvious points.
Yes, you’ve been trolling everyone in this thread about how they are traitors in response to them questioning someone who stated that anyone who disagreed with pausing AI are traitors because they support “super intelligence”, not even “uncontrolled”. You didn’t “just” do anything, and you should probably try reading your comments and the context again rather than whatever obvious point you thought you were “just” making. I mean that is why you just made an observation and moved on? Right?
Nah, it was this instead:
“I was just saying they didn’t need to include some text, repeatedly, 28 times while saying people are traitors. But then I’m gonna try to say I wasn’t actually doing that even though I did it repeatedly, because obviously everyone else was just too stupid to understand my absolutely useless observation that I felt I needed to defend repeatedly because obviously everyone is too dumb to understand my incredible observatory powers, and people couldn’t possibly be disagreeing because I look like an idiot repeatedly trolling about people being traitors.”
Did you really think everyone was disagreeing that it wasn’t necessary? You really are something, fun times watching it though, but hey, you should definitely repeat that silly observation one more time.
“They included a provision to certify again that they agree with common sense, how unnecessary!” No kidding dumb-dumb… that’s why they do it…so people voting against it can be labeled traitors to humanity…like you’ve been doing…
Does it really need to be spelled out so plainly how useless your observation is and the net effect of your incessant replying to people who disagree with the person you decided to defend with your “observation”? Nevermind, apparently it does since your 6 defensive comments deep “just” making an observation.
You are literally unable to hold a hypothetical in your head, just like in that study. It’s amazing. I’m trying to help you understand what this thread is about but you simply cannot do it.
Okay so a conditional works like this. There is a proposition A implies B. This does not mean A is true or false. It means that if A actually were true, then B would also be true.
“Opt-in” means to agree to something. If something is “opt-in by default”, it means that it is opt-out and someone is using weasel wording and contract inducements to force you into something you didn’t actually agree to. Any “disagreement” is just people trying to advocate for what they wished it meant.
I find it interesting that you were perfectly happy with it, enjoying it even, but it was only at the point you noticed a minor word pronounced incorrectly that you flip to the extreme, hate it and want to block it to never see it again?
I’ve started calling this “AI Bipolar”, and I find it fascinating. It seems like people are offended that they were “duped” into enjoying AI generated content, but will continue on to the next lower-quality human-made content with all sorts of issues that they will completely forgive solely out of comfort that it is a human doing it.
> Somewhere, you need aluminum smelters, steel mills, and copper mines.
Why? We already have plenty of materials that can, are close, or have potential pathways for functional substitutes depending on the application? We are already pretty reliably able to print metal with machines no bigger than a fridge.
What happens when a curable resin or impregnated plastic can sufficiently replace steel/aluminum/copper for functions? Why would a steel foundry be needed for the desktop then? There are more theoretical materials that haven’t been discovered than there are atoms in the universe or something crazy like that, so it isn’t beyond the realm of possibility or even likelihood. Especially if AI helps accelerate that discovery, as it seems to be doing already according to a recent Faraday talk in a Royal Institution video — "How AI is Reinventing the Battery".
It also used to be that you needed a large machine to make a plastic part…now I print some in 20 minutes with something that sits on my desk. If one thing is true, it’s that materials and technology constantly change and (generally) improve.
Well, that is going at the problem from the wrong direction - you should use a 3D printer not to print everything, rather to print tools and fittings to manufacture what you need from local resources.
In this case for example a saw making tool & make the beam from local wood using 3D printed gauges.
Wood you harvest and cut yourself is not going to match an I beam on strength, you need engineered wood for that, which involves adhesives and composites.
Not to mention, lots of places on earth don't have local wood suitable for construction...
Actual real people think the world is flat, Elvis is alive, and aliens are regularly flying around the planet. Is preventing peoples unimportant personal beliefs really an important goal or is this just more warning label culture?
I see no contradiction. GPT as synonym for AI and llama as symbol for open weights models. The original comment said llama had set something off in the open weights community. And I say you see that with llama.cpp, llamaindex, r/localllama. No one bothered to update them to qwen.cpp or qwenindex. And they were never localgpt or gpt.cpp.
Culture and language use says a lot about importance of ideas. Regardless of what was first or what some scholar sees as historically more important.
reply