humansareok1

Through a search space often large enough to be completely intractable with a galaxy wide computer.

There's a lot of automated proof checkers out there. Presumably you would just run any solution from an AI through those.

This is completely different from one lab running the same experiment 20 times and publishing the one positive result.

>someone will eventually publish a false positive result without fraud.

I think most people correctly intuit that this is actually a type of very pernicious fraud.

How is this a spectrum. There is indeed a spectrum of p(doom)s which represent meaningful positions about risk and then there's e/acc's, a group of misanthropic weirdos who are actively interested in pursuing the extinction of our species. If you can't see the difference then there is indeed nothing to discuss.

>One other nice thing is that instead of restricted stock you get actual money.

Stock at FAANG is basically equivalent to cash. You can sell it as soon as you get it.

Wait til you learn how many people can't do simple percentages like 10% of 150 or how many people can't do basic arithmetic like 19+15.

>what is being sold is not and cannot become smart in the way it's being sold by x-risk stans

Do you have actual evidence for this astonishing take? Because I'm sure the entire field would be entranced by your genius here. It's actually completely UN-clear what the limits to LLMs are and it's completely ridiculous to say otherwise.

>starting from the actual point of disagreement is probably a better play

Fundamentally most e/accs or other anti-doom stans believe that AGI/ASI are actually impossible, that nothing can be smarter than humans and that human brains constitute special magic meat. Almost all of their other wrong beliefs stem from those.

"I'm not smart enough to imagine how something might work therefore it's impossible"

Of course but having an expectation of 100% reliability from AI when Humans aren't even close to that seems misguided.

>There is nothing consistent about it.

Apparently you haven't worked with many humans...

> All the doom scenarios seem to rely on quasi-magical abilities springing from advanced intelligence

The amount of people who dismiss doom risk with some version of "I'm not smart enough to imagine what something far smarter than me might be capable of" is staggering. "I can't imagine how nanobots might work therefore they must be impossible."

>Then, suppose AI does somehow think itself into effecting human annihilation, what happens when all the humans are dead? At the current state of things, all electricity production on the planet goes dark in maybe two weeks. Nuke plants irradiate significant parts of the earth, chip fabs are bricked, metal production is toast. In short the AI necessarily dies too.

Smart enough to eradicate humanity but not smart enough to plan ahead to keep itself running. Ok buddy.

>The only way for this not to happen is AI controlled robots first gaining complete control of massive chunks of the economy. If AI is as useless as the article claims then that will effectively never happen.

"AI hasn't taken over large parts of the economy, therefore it never will." I really just can't even...

These were pretty terrible. 10/10 if you've literally ever seen an AI generated image before. Totally not representative of the state of the art. In 5 years I doubt anyone but experts can tell by the naked eye in most cases.

I think you are misunderstanding. These are typically mathematical tricks used for computation and don't lead to actual non-local interpretations of QM. I don't think any major work is done without standard QFT.

I doubt you can find any serious Theoretical Physicist who believes retrocausality or FTL information transmission is compatible with the Universe we observe.

Anyway we've diverged off the actual crux which is that Quantum Conscious Woowoo theories require types of hidden variable theories which are not coherent with this Universe.

The only theories not ruled out by Bell are non local. You have to accept such a mountain of nonsense for any non local theory to be valid that I don't think anyone takes them seriously.

100% you're just adding additional volatility for higher returns. Backdate the strategy, doubtful you're beating the overall index on decade timescales.

Has the World Index ever outperformed the SP500 over a 40-50 year span?

Seems pretty obvious that their keeping their best returning strategies for employees rather than outside investors?

Can you explain how it's fundamentally any different from retail investors just buying and holding the SP500 Index Companies' stocks individually?

>The higher quality of the CUDA toolkit compared to other SIMD languages, combined with it's increasing relevance in compute (gaming, followed by blockchain, followed by ML, followed by GPT) would have made this an NVDA an easy pick for anyone (of the increasing number of people) that worked in parallel computing from 2006-2023.

Hindsight is 20/20. I highly doubt people in parallel computing, unless they already worked at Nvidia, have done better than anyone else with their portfolios. Other than the standard delta you'd assume since those people are probably savvier investors in general.

I like this approach too. My primary investments in index funds continue to grow and I get just enough of a dopamine hit from smaller bets on Nvidia and Crypto that I don't get crushed by fomo and end up betting my mortgage on some far otm call options or some shitcoin.

We've already invalidated hidden variable theories in Physics so I find it hard to believe consciousness has some separate class of hidden effects still undiscovered and allowable in our universe.

Both are necessary but neither is sufficient.

Go to like any large city and people sell knockoffs for cheap on the sidewalk.

>although I don't recommend it to anyone (my health and well-being suffered)

> I plan to keep up the pace for the next 1-2 years in order to reach principal.

At what cost? You even admit this is damaging to your health and well-being... wtf

I'd check your numbers on that from 30 years ago. They weren't even in the same universe of selectivity as they are now. Full-time/part-time is totally irrelevant. What, are you the most elitist credentialist of all time lol? Jesus.

And then he went to Stanford so hardly a failure...

>Of course a memory cannot be _explicitly_ (like .mp4? lol) encoded in genetics.

Indeed so the answer to the question: Can you inherit memories from your ancestors? Is No. Full stop.

You want to talk about how the vibes during your grandparents lives affected some obscure part of your parents health then ok. But these things are completely different.

Oh yeah so you want to explain how Epigenetics can transfer the memory of my Grandfathers 17th Birthday Party to my brain?

Can memories be explicitly encoded in genes? If not then no. End of the story.