The term AGI was first used in 1997 by Mark Avrum Gubrud in an article named ‘Nanotechnology and international security’

By advanced artificial general intelligence, I mean AI systems that rival or surpass the human brain in complexity and speed, that can acquire, manipulate and reason with general knowledge, and that are usable in essentially any phase of industrial or military operations where a human intelligence would otherwise be needed. Such systems may be modeled on the human brain, but they do not necessarily have to be, and they do not have to be “conscious” or possess any other competence that is not strictly relevant to their application. What matters is that such systems can be used to replace human brains in tasks ranging from organizing and running a mine or a factory to piloting an airplane, analyzing intelligence data or planning a battle.

I don’t know what else I can say to make my view clearer. There are people in those events that I don’t want to be associated with. If they would only focus on the pride thing and keep the rest of it to themselves, then I could choose to not care about it but they don’t and thus I wish to not partake.

You don’t have to endorse anything.

No but presence is read as assent. I wouldn’t join a right-leaning march if people were flying Nazi flags there either. It doesn’t matter that I don’t personally support them. By being there I effectively do.

And I’m not equating a Nazi flag to a Palestinian flag. It’s just a provocative example to highlight my point.

LLM are unable to become AGI.

You could not possibly know that. You’re attributing to it a probability of zero and zero is an extreme number. Unlikely is a claim you can defend. Zero you cannot.

They want AGI, not LLMs. They’re pretty much betting everything on getting there first knowing that if they do it’ll pay them back a millionfold what they invested up front. They’re taking a massive risk for a potentially massive reward. They’re coaching a college kid to become a professional athlete. It’s not profitable yet but they’re investing heavily in them in the hopes that one day it will be.

If you are against one kind of oppression but not against another, you aren’t really against oppression.

Which circles back to my original point: simply being gay is no longer good enough.

No, I’m not excluded. I just don’t want to march for an unrelated cause that people smuggle in which I don’t support. They wouldn’t tolerate me waving an Israeli flag there either, nor should they.

Last pride march here had a ton of Palestinian flags there for example that not only has nothing to do with pride but is also a hilariously ignorant thing to do considering how gays get treated in most Muslim-majority countries.

It’s a left-wing event pretty much. If you’re gay who leans right you’re effectively straight.

After that, it starts going downhill.

No study suggests this. It keeps going up - you’re just hitting diminishing returns.

Having financial security eases with financial worries to an extent but doesn’t entirely solve even that issue nor does it even begin to deal with the unrelated issues. One can be financially secure and absolutely miserable.

And it spreads everywhere. Can’t even partake in pride march because of my wrong cultural views. Simply being gay isn’t enough anymore - need to sing up for the package deal.

From where I stand it seems that it’s because those people have no mutual aspirations - just mutual enemies. The group is not held together by a shared common goal but a shared enemy.

To be fair, a year is pretty pathetic performance even for work books unless you step on landmines for living.

I’m not a fan of Apple but to suggest their products aren’t of exceptionally high quality is a bit ridiculous. They’re not exactly known for cheaping out on stuff. I have an 11 year old MacBook still in daily use because it refuses to die. I plugged in my iPad too the other day and it fired right up. This one is from 2012.

Maybe not every company.

Peterson mostly agrees with Harris? The guys who spend an hour trying to define the word “truth” and failing to do so? I could not disagree more.

The massive horse dildo may be a bit of an head scratcher, though knowing me - maybe not that surprising thing to find.

He is clearly uninterested in convincing his opponent.

Having watched his debates with Sam Harris, I’ll at least give him credit for being able to steelman the views he’s arguing against.

Whether one is able to get others to change their deeply held beliefs is another thing but simply being able to demonstrate that you’ve actually understood the point you’re arguing against is a rare skill in of itself.

I’ve definitely had people reconsider their stance by bringing in more data or an alternative perspective but I’m not sure if anyone has ever admitted to having their view change about something. Then again, I don’t always announce it either despite the fact that it does happen so I guess it’s safe to assume I’ve then made it happen too.

In all honesty though, most online arguments are people talking past each other and disagreeing on minute details. Often the conclusion is “we’re broadly in agreement but we disagree about this one thing.”

That’s why it’s so ridiculous that people treat disagreement as if the person must then hold the exact opposite view. That is almost never the case.

The issue has been pretty much solved. Now we just need to distribute the solution to the people that need it.