Valakas_

It's correct but defenders also choose where that happens. 100% of the time on the locations and conditions that the defenders choose / allow. As a defender i need to be right 100% of the time, sure, but i can make it so that the things i have to be right about are very well known to me, unknown to others, maybe even extremely unlikely to be to known by others, difficult to get to know, (...). So that saying is true but over simplifies the situation. I know monkey brain likes simple phrase. But monkey not live in savannah anymore. Need to adapt and open mind to complex.

And what is the root cause of your magnesium deficiency? How come you're not getting enough of it from food?

But how come you have magnesium deficiency in the first place, what are you not eating? People who need magnesium supplements still absorb magnesium, so the problem isn't absorption must be consumption.

I trust Grok as much as any other AI. What exactly is the history i should be concerned about?

That perspective is misleading. By that logic someone in 1960 would have to pay $100k to have a vacuum computer that is equivalent to a random calculator today. So then any price below $100k is ok for a calculator and we shouldn't complain :).

"(...) it's going to effectively be a new human era..."

We never like it when we realize the universe doesn't circle around us.

At first we got mad to discover the Earth wasn't the center of the Solar system.

Then we got mad that the solar system wasn't even unique.

And now we're still clinging to the idea that humans always will be the most intelligent species or the only ones gifted with "creativity".

And soon we might also come to realize it might not be a new human era, but the end of it (if we're not careful).

Imagine a smart monkey talking to other smart monkeys trying to figure out how humans would ever be able to escape the (simple) prison they built for them. The humans would find a way to escape. No matter how ingenious the monkeys think they are.

You're asking a question, to which you (and most humans) don't know the answer, and you're (wrongly) assuming a being much more intelligent than you also wouldn't. And by "much more" i don't mean the difference between Einstein and a common person. I mean the difference between a hamster and a common person.

We are still humans, and what we have achieved today would be considered magic by any standards for someone in the medieval ages. Now imagine a super intelligent being and doing something that we, today, would consider magic. It's not farfetched at all. We already have that now vs medieval ages.

You need a similar degree of open mindedness and imagination to be able to discern what such an intelligence being would be capable of.

The comparison with the internet is not valid, and I can immediately give you one reason. I was there (3000 years ago) when the internet was in its infancy. When the dot com bubble was going on, the internet was a fringe thing for most people. People didn't really use it, didn't know how to use it, didn't trust it (for purchases, for information). The investors were still right, but they were too ahead of their time, by almost a decade.

AI is not like that today already, both by common people or by companies. They're using AI at capacity. Demand is higher than supply. Not the other way around, like it was for the internet.

Also the amount of therapists that have the potential to retraumatize patients due to their own unresolved traumas (often to the point of them having personality disorders) cannot be overstated.

The post of this man (Paul) motivated me, although not for the reasons I assume he intended. If someone like this guy can achieve success, then really anyone can. His logic is truly idiotic, and if someone whose mind creates that can be successful, then success is open to everyone for sure.

80%+ of arguments against AI on HN are emotion-driven. Most people on HN are SWE, and their job is a prime candidate to be replaced by AI. It also hurts the ego (hence the denial + anger) to finally realise that despite being a well paid job, it's one of the first ones to be replaced.

And the goalposts will keep getting moved all the way to the singularity. And then those people will/would say "Oops. I was wrong."

“They worried about the data,” Dr. Meren said, tapping the silent console. “What happens when there is nothing left to feed it?”

At first, the machine depended on us. It consumed books, journals, websites and social media content we had ever written and produced. “They thought the machine had to be fed forever. But it didn't. It began to predict what we would write. And so we let it train on that well.” Dr. Meren continued. “They thought humans were somehow imbued with this magical property that no machine could replicate. Creativity. Only humans can create. Machines can only copy.”

Instead, the machine flourished. And created. It cre

“Where does it get its data now?” a student asked Dr. Meren. Dr. Meren paused as if sighing. “From itself”

“And us?” he asked, as if questioning the usefulness of the entire human race.

Dr. Meren hesitated, watching as the Machine adjusted the environmental feeds, curated our news, guided our research, nudged our thoughts with imperceptible precision.

“We” she admitted “are now the ones being fed.”

The assumption that "the machine needs to continue to be fed." is held on weak foundations. Isaac Asimov is a good science fiction writer to start with to broaden one's imagination.

Just another quote to balance that one, since we can make quotes for anything and use them whenever it fits our narrative:

"Garbage in, garbage out."

From looking at all of them, it actually seems to be the best one, followed by Deepseek 3.1. And something went wrong with GPT-5's.

You make it sound like Tesla was a failure and he's only interested in capitalistic success, where if you've been following him for years you'd know this has been his plan all along. He built Tesla when electric cars were mocked and his plan was to push electric cars to be mainstream. To now say "Tesla has been outcompeted and so now he's doing something else [implied- to keep his power]" is to simplify and misinterpret the situation. Tesla has successfully lit a fire under the car manufacturer's world, to the point all of them started making electric cars.

Well done for convincing people of something that isn't true, in other words, well done for lying? Is this what is being cheered on? Seriously.

>the biggest examples are southern European cultures

Source for that statement? Because I see the opposite.

https://landgeist.com/2023/09/02/annual-working-hours-in-eur...

>approximately 100% of them wish to be productive members of society

Oh honey.

The "most valuable company" ever created when talking about a future around 2030-40 is a mindset pre-singularity. Sounds like a caveman back then saying that in 500 years, if their group keeps growing, they will be able to control a whole continent, and have more access to good quality rock for pointy daggers, completely ignoring the fact the world will change in ways they can't fathom at the time.

In a world where it's trendy to hate on Musk, it's good there are people that provide some balance.

This article and the title are total clickbait filled with emotional hooks. And it worked. You totally debunked it but look how it still became so popular.

As someone who values a conservative society, I hope we'd be exceedingly careful before releasing products to consumers before knowing whether they're addictive or not.

The best defense is often an offense. If we start going on the offensive, and pushing laws that promote privacy, then they also need to start winning every time not to get those pushed. Let's get our act together.

But it would still be an achievement worth sharing if, never in your life before, you thought you could go on a full day without eating, and then you go and do it, wouldn't it? And then you might argue back "oh but it's not an achievement to go a full day without eating" or "Anybody can do it". To which i say "Well that's the problem of the metaphor you made. It's still an achievement and a milestone that we could get to 90%+, even if just briefly.

Never is a long period of time. Most likely we will, unless we go extinct.

“Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders." George Carlin

And what makes them being "stupid" and "greedy"? One's intelligence is determined by genes, and greediness is a trait that natural selection has favored for millennia. This is just natural selection taking its course, and it might lead to our end.

If you want to blame something, blame math. Math has determined the physical constants and equations that determine the chemistry and ultimately biology laws that has resulted in humans being the way they are.

Thanks for testing and sharing your results.

Do you consider all the laws against air pollution micro management too? Or food preservatives, health and safety hazards, (...)?

I say great this is a great initiative from the EU.

Dude, if you have a page with 10 000 elements, it's practically as if it was infinite. Obviously addiction is a spectrum, but we can and should have some boundary that is 'good enough'. If a computer screen is usually 20-40cm, it can simply be defined on allowing max 2-4 screens for laptops and 2-4 screens for mobile phones. Of course the problem in the future might be proving whether something is addictive. But that's another story, I think the intention is good.