mdp2021

But they are dependent. If Bob is intellectually well equipped, and reasons long enough, than Bob understands "best behaviour".

Not «common» good, "superior" good. Alongside with that, you have put many unrequired implicits in your simile.

Your character H. has reached a moral judgement to the best of its intellectual capacities and past and specific effort. Give it enough abilities and material and resources, it will reach an optimal ethical judgement¹.

Before the conditions of optimality though, its judgement will easily not align with yours (and possibly even after, depending on your judgement skills).

¹Some interesting caveats may be raised there, but.

> why are the history books littered with so many evil people who gained power

That they gained power or not is almost irrelevant: the amount of intelligence that grants successful agency is not above the threshold of ethics - on the contrary, a psychotic agent reaches goals with less constraints.

If they were evil under some judgement of level l, they simply did not reach that judgement. It's what I was saying in the original post. They were not intelligent enough - either in the general ability, or in the specific deliberation.

(Couriously enough, consistently with the matter: it will probably require too much time now to counter the parent statement properly, within a full enough explicit theory.)

Ann's intelligence and Bob's morality will seem orthogonal. Charles' morality is a function of C.'s intelligence as an ability as an effort spent to reach the current moral conclusion.

> If AI is really smart

Well, it's not.

> AGI smart for some

Of course they will - the population shows a Paretian distribution... In front of trigonometry (or anything), the blind will dismiss as "bullshit" and the half-seeing will call it an "unreachable frontier". But already the right fifth will rank it properly.

--

Yes, proper intellect generates ethics ("an" ethical stance, output of the preceding intellectual effort). It requires that adequate level of ability and effort and reflection though to reach specific ethical milestones and adherence.

Unethical behaviour is lack of development. But on the same reasons, the ethical judgement of the assessor may not understand the computations behind instances.

More specifically: how much "reflection" in training and at the instance will have been spent in the conflict between "reaching the goal" and "minimizing collaterals"? It is not granted that the amount of energy spent will be sufficient to reach an optimal judgement.

Bruce Schneier shared a shot judgement and a third-party article four weeks ago:

> (Title:) Using a VM to Contain an AI Agent (Opening:) It won’t work

> https://blog.trailofbits.com/2026/08/26/vms-wont-contain-cyb...

(You were probably downvoted because supposing that a specific drug could have been a cause of damage, when potential causes of damage abound, may not sound sensible.)

I think you now understood that with «Pharmacology is the discipline that deals with drugs» what was meant is "If we interpret your questions as "could they have administered anything toxic", the answer would be "what they do is administering substances relevant to toxicity"".

I would approach the situation (just "my two cents") by trying to redirect towards health by maximizing healthy conditions. They do not sell "health pills" - but when one has had to take them, try to counterbalance that "compromise" with healthier lifestyle.

No, humanity needs to actively (actively) rediscover human Values, to correct the proportion in the run towards technological growth vs Human growth - condition that has been noted for centuries and it substantially amounts to giving power to monkeys.

This does not counter that an idle, decadent mentality will have curbed growth everywhere.

Point out where the article would say it's "alive". That LLM systems instead "autonomously" and "unwarrantedly" decide refusal services is a basic notion.

> What we call “AI”

About time you stop doing that, then.

@Jon: see? You write that you «are training them to refuse human requests when their makers believe refusal is safer» and Joe replies that he uses the term "AI" like a conformist. Do not "we" improperly.

And again, and again, and again.

-- That more control can be imposed to painted flat material is hardly controvertible.

-- That the results prove that triangles defined objects are tools that require much higher mastery - well, if you cannot see it for yourself, suppose a panel of art critics will be there.

Again, the sniper seems to prove the point. Decadence and non effort are strictly related.

> the police has no fault

Gross lack of due diligence: it has full fault.

Untrained officials: graver systemic fault.

> company, are totally innocent

How clear is the uncertainty of the output?

> because I was concerned about

Everytime you deal with nominal professionals you should be concerned, because their professional ability is not granted. People who deal with bodies deal with an immensely complex and subtle mechanism: they do not know it as well as needed, and their regard is easily not too different from that of Robert Liston in their evaluation of compromises - your due diligence does realistically involve verifying that values are aligned (otherwise they may decide that they can sacrifice something that for you is critically vital).

> I am not sure why it was being downvoted

Neither do I - I did not. (I did take the implied into account.)

> snark

Good: since we are here, can you kindly explain what "snark" is, because I find the term in the guidelines, I have no idea how to interpret it, I asked it a few times and I got downvoted for the question?

> We

Get out of Belgium, then - if it was you and your people.

There are clear ideological, decadent faults in the eu administration. They are responsible for the destruction of one of the main continental industries, transferring (even reduced) pollution to Africa, where decent old cars go (with again no effect on global warming), and transferring the enterprise to China.

"The swan's shriek".

A probably non negligible weight is that decadence is bearish.

Those alive invest in long term planning, those with a dead drive get conservative in their action.

Since this is the "footnotes" branch,

> There's dozens of us!

~~ Arrested Development (the "Never Nude" syndrome)

You are aware that "pharmaceutical" vs "poison" is a matter of doses and control, right?

That a dose not too different from adult posology of paracetamol can be lethal?

Maybe you did not know that "heroin" was developed at Bayer (the informal name came out of the trials after the reports from the testers)...

Pharmacology is the discipline that deals with drugs.

Is this the phenomenon you try to refer to?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/01/milo-yiannop...

> take any action

Action must be surgical. Even with mosquitoes - with humans, you figure.

I am shocked at how you can suppose you can propose zero quality like that here.

Yes. Everybody here should be or get acquainted with Herbert Simon - he is both "Logic Theory Machine" and "General Problem Solver" and "linked lists", and "bounded rationality" and "satisficing".

Herbert Simon - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_A._Simon

> speculation

Not any speculation but educated guesses from knowledgeable people.

Kills you very late, gives all the time to reap.

Curiously, this is still relevant to my comment nearby about "slow effect models" ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49842956 ).

And: shaking the scene in a way that will attract too much attention, including crackdowns, is very bad for business.

It is a matter of thresholds, of consequential bets over provisional non-trivial assessments, and of journalistic duty (taking note - the idea is not from the analyst but from sources; journalists take note that sources made statements).

Analysts work speculatively. And the results of the speculation are not trivial when supported by strong elements.

Soon after John Stewart Mill we assessed that markets are not perfect.

Accelerations in the different directions of bounded incentives create as-if Brownian motions, - not the stability towards optimality of a perfect organic model.

Or: what you write is rational, but people are easily not... The supply side should disappear from the market when irrational, but changes are slow..

There is one "access free" paragraph in the page... "Police are coming to the conclusion".

> biased with older generation that [has] grown up with

It is a matter of aesthetics. So it is possible that the gap is not about nostalgia, but about artistic exposure.

I could give you an example of a suggestion that there has been a flood of degradation: I was exposed to a television recently tuned to a videomusic channel: the limited samples I glimpsed were about "young and fit", as if the collective visual show converged to heavily "body oriented", in a heavily basic manner. When "commercial to the median" floods the spread imagery and artistic awareness is on the contrary not encouraged, you can get - and I have witnessed them - people nodding at the ugliest things.

If you meant "you have to necessarily flatten", check 3D displays like the ones based on screen rotation,

see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49780526 for example: it is a DIY, and there is a demo of playing Doom in apparent 3D.

Another system in which matching interactive design and art could be difficult - but surely not impossible, and, on the contrary, a good challenge.

2D necessarily aimed towards design (like illustration). Results were proportionate to talent.

3D (up to when I could be attentive) was immensely ugly, unartistic, if you take "2D as design" as a parameter. Flat (paradoxically), random - you take a screenshot and typically find the opposite of aesthetic pleasure. The instrument is not immediately fit for artistic purpose.

Aside: who is going to vibecode an isometric Fallout that uses the New Vegas datafiles?

(Just suggesting.)

> It can be a lot easier to model, rig and animate a 3D

Some do. The talking heads in Fallout were sculptures, for example (I think from paper, but cannot remember well).

But drawing vs rendering from 3D models can be either an aesthetic choice (Braid is an example) or an optimal choice depending on your workflow, expertise, equipment etc.

And in the current times, also Generative NNs I think were proven a possibility to generate animation.

> in the current games economy

Indie vs mainstream have different ways.