hackyhacky

> You are not smarter than your dog in dog behavior.

That's true, which is my point: intelligence is not a scalar value. LLMs are intelligent from us in different ways, as a result of not being human, despite having access to a record of human behavior.

To bring this back to the dog analogy: we have a rich record of dog behavior and yet people still don't know how to be smarter than dogs in dog behavior. Because we're not dogs.

> What mechanism would an AI have today to simultaneously kill every single human being?

Lull us into a sense of complacent idleness over the course of centuries by slowly taking on more responsibility for maintaining human civilization, until we've lost all ability to think or act on our own, as in WALL-E. Then just stop helping us.

> If it's smarter than you, it can foresee everything you can, and come up with plans better than I can.

I'm smarter than my dog, yet I am frequently unable to foresee my dog's actions.

Serious response: we have no idea what ASI means or might be like. It's literally sci fi (at the moment).

The political, rather than legal, justification for unrestricted gun ownership in the US is that an armed citizenry is able to resist a tyrannical government.

Regardless of your opinion on that argument, I don't think it applies well as an argument against AI regulations.

If the trigger has already been pulled, then we're off the hook. That genie ain't going back in the bottle! Pop the champagne and order 3 more data centers, pronto.

> if you know of an industry that’s properly progressive and countercultural and could conceivably pay at least survival wages

* Be a hallucinogenic therapy shaman.

* Start a cult.

* Work as one of those paid protesters that they always mention on Fox News

Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge.

— Lao Tzu

OK, I'll bite. What, in your opinion is happening? What should we be doing instead?

You the real MVP

> Nobody except you is talking about history.

You're kind of missing the point of my comment. You said, in essence, that it's impossible to learn about Communism unless you've experienced it personally.

> China and North Korea, with Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba

Of those countries, how many have you experienced personally, and thus, by your standard, are qualified to comment on?

To what extent is modern China actually Communist, as opposed capitalist-authoritarian?

Formally specified: there exists some human woman, in whose hand this will fit.

I read it. It's definitely a rebuttal.

> which in turn means it was intended to be the last.

That's a bold and misguided assertion of authorial intent.

Since you're a fan of the scientific method: you can please cite sources in support of your claim?

Is the purpose of school to make you do things that you'll enjoy?

> Teaching it to young minds who have not experienced the difference between the realities of communism and the rest is a vanity at best.

So, we shouldn't learn about history until we experience it ourselves? Seems like that would eliminate, uh, most of history.

I haven't experienced the harsh realities of the Cretaceous period but I still like reading about dinosaurs.

> Problem is that book is based on so many things that we know are untrue about humans

Which parts specifically of Animal Farm are untrue? Greed, hypocrisy, cruelty, avarice? Or the talking animals?

> They could be spending eight hours a day in the Kindle app reading classics

Have you been around kids recently? I think we all know what they're doing on the phone, and it's not The Great Gatsby.

>This book cannot prove anything, other than one person's opinion on history

You've misunderstood the purpose.

Fiction was not ever intended to achieve scientific goals, i.e. to discover the truth about our universe. It's intended to be thought-provoking, i.e. to inspire questions about our universe.

You need the question before you can find the answer.

> I do not support groups that aim to overturn election results,

So you don't support Trump, who has tried to overturn the 2020 election results?

You don't support Reform UK, who have expressed an interest in bypassing democratic results in order to enact their agenda?

You don't support AfD who have explicitly embraced anti-democratic measures and Nazi-style politics?

> Supporting democracy != supporting far-right parties

So, to be clear: do you or do you not support Trump, Reform UK, and AfD?

> fascistic moves like banning opposition parties

You should address the other commenter's question: why do you think German law outlaws anti-democratic parties? Can you think of any reason?

> Every accusation is a confession.

lol

In at least two senses, yes:

1. It is owned by the public. The public has a right to know how its tax dollars are being spent.

2. Certainly there is no expectations of privacy in a jail cell, as the jail administrators and guards can enter at any time.

>and will be disenfranchised under Republican voter ID requirements.

Can you explain this further?

A person who can legally vote today, but in the future cannot vote because of election restrictions, will be disenfranchised. You are supporting election restrictions that disenfranchise 10% of the US population.

>>That's why 10% of the US population doesn't have form of ID that could be used to vote

>Correlation != causation

I never made a claim of causation. I just said that 10% of legal US voting-eligible citizens don't have ID and will therefore be disenfranchised by your proposal.

> They are issued automatically after proving eligibility.

That's not what "automatic" means.

> My criticism of the left has nothing to do with the "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result."

That's not what I said. You are criticizing the left for disliking election results; meanwhile, you are supporting groups that aim to overturn election results. That's the irony.

The incongruity arises from the contradiction in your opinions. One would expect a reasonable person to either support democracy in all cases, or oppose it. You, however, support democracy when it suits your partisan ends and oppose it when it doesn't. That's both hypocritical and ironic.

> Please reread the definition of hypocrisy.

Okay. Hypocrisy: behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel

You claim to be opposed to authoritarianism but you actually support authoritarian right-wing groups.

Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

You can't just say "whataboutism" whenever someone points out your blatant hypocrisy.

Republicans tolerate democracy when it goes their and do everything to undermine it when it doesn't.

See exhibit: Trump

> they never won a majority in a free national election.

They legally won a plurality in the Bundestag, which is sufficient for Hitler to be legally appointed chancellor, which made everything that follows legal. Like it or not, the Nazi regime was a legal result of democracy. Democracy, neither then nor now, requires an absolute majority, which is why so many European governments are formed as coalitions.

AfD did not win a majority in Saxony-Anhalt either. Nevertheless, a person can justifiably feel disappointed by the democratic outcome, both then and now, without being dismissive of democracy itself.

> You're following me around in the comments

I am doing my part to eliminate misinformation and stupidity in the world. You're welcome.

Incredible sense of deja vu. I feel like I was just having this same conversation with another user who has the mind of a 13 year old child.

> The point was you thought IDs for voting were not free

I guess you choose to dwell on this particular issue because it makes you feel better, but actually we're talking about Republican rules to restrict voting. The availability of ID is an issue in that discussion. Any friction involved in getting an ID, including but not limited to paying for it, will limited voting in practice.

> Proving you're eligibility to vote is not disenfranchisement.

Disenfranchisement is causing eligible voters to not be able to vote. Which is what happens when add requirements that people don't fulfill.

> Stop projecting about being confused. Everyone can see where you poorly attempted to support your objectively false points.

Oh okay.

> He is Jewish, not White.

You are aware that it is a cornerstone of antisemitic thought to consider Jewish people to be not white?

Were you pleased with the functioning of Germany democracy in 1932?

> Yes leftists are the least likely to know AfD supporters.

Can you please tell us about your first-hand experience with AfD supporters?

> The most openly antisemitic groups in Germany are leftists, so, I don't want to ask them about their awful opinions about the Jews.

I think you meant to write "anti-Zionist" instead of "antisemitic."

Certainly the Jews don't think the AfD is their friend. https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2026-09-07/ty-arti...