> intelligence beyond human control. (1)
to
> that will obviously end humanity (2)
There's quite an assumption on the feasibility of (1) and even a bigger jump that from (1) follows (2)
Some people can have less apocalyptic / more pragmatic views of the potential of AI.
And you are not seriously engaging with anything I’ve written I’ll add. The definition Bernie Sanders has for superintelligence involves it having the capability to “plan and execute the disempowerment of humanity”. That is going to lead to the end of humanity but feel free to quibble in support of what Sanders had set up as obviously severely undesirable.
Why should I? You've already declared me a traitor to humanity. You can't expect people to take your opinions seriously if you don't take theirs seriously.
Also I guess GP is your sock puppet else I wasn’t even talking to you. I don’t take your opinions seriously, yes.
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.
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.
Yeah bud, you definitely aren’t saying the outcome is automatic. Or maybe you are, and the low IQ take is in not recognizing it?
IF someone supports an uncontrollable superintelligence, THEN they have bad intentions for humanity (=traitor).
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.
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.
I didn’t read any of your post btw.
Here you can have the last word since you apparently need it so bad for “just” saying something: