Mbwagava

Really? I don't hear that comparative tone at all.

Anyway, it doesn't feel like "wanting to be special" or "just like everyone else" are concepts interesting enough to discuss, let alone get under your skin. Surely grappling with differences and similarities is just part of everyone's normal existence.

An easy way to avoid this is not going to corporate-sponsored hackathons.

Yea but bedridden mammals still have motivation and chemical drivers of impulses. It's not clear what this maps to on the software side.

Surely this just makes a mockery of the same tone and style that indicates someone put effort and thought into producing something. This just seems in net to waste everyone's time with no benefit to us.

Right, but what is the point of letting companies own other companies if this also doesn't imply transitive accountibility? It's hard to imagine we can't find reasons to imprison the board of blackrock, for instance. Such a massive company has disproportionately small social responsibility.

I'm not sure what on earth intelligence means if it doesn't imply consciousness. Why do we not consider a calculator intelligent then?

...more personally involved than owning a large part of the company and directly running it? How much more personally involved can you get? Otherwise corporations would be above accountability. The whole system falls apart if executives and the board (and ideally, shareholders) can't be considered personally responsible.

Letting them know you'll tip cash is the best advice here. The movers will treat your stuff better and stuff won't go missing (although I have no reason to think this is specifically a concern, I do understand the paranoia).

Hell, investing in general is a "mug"'s game (never heard this phrase before) if you go by per-capita return. It's the exceptionsl performers that make an outsized contribution to revenue that floats the whole boat.

Nb i actually really resent substack for sending me to the app. No; I don't want to pollute my history with this post, I just want to read it.

It obviously isn't if people are casually bringing up AGI like it's feasible.

Fair point, but that's hardly applicable to the llm metaphor. If you're ok with shit work you can just run a program.

Ok, but very few people contest that consciousness is computable. It's basically just Penrose (and other folks without the domain knowledge to engage). This doesn't imply that at any point during all human existence will computing consciousness be economically feasible or worthwhile.

Actual AGI presumably implies a not-brain involved.

And this isn't even broaching the subject of "superintelligence", which I would describe as "superunbelievable".

Sure, but what does that have to do with AGI? I don't think anyone is proposing simulating an entire brain (yet, anyway).

Like you could have "AGI" if you simply virtualized the universe. I don't think we're any closer to that than we are to AGI; hell, something that looks like a human mouth output is a lot easier and cheaper to model than virtualize.

Is there any evidence that AGI is a meaningful concept? I don't want to call it "obviously" a fantasy, but it's difficult to paint the path towards AGI without also employing "fantasize".

Cinema created jobs though, it didn't reduce them. Furthermore the value of film is obvious. You need to extremely hedge an LLM to pitch it to anyone.