Like I said you’re free to say whatever you want. There’s no harm in me asking for a mutually polite discussion. I don’t agree with your synopsis of what you think I think and that’s also fine. Put firmly the goal is to decrease needless and avoidable suffering for as many people as possible whether that’s with policy or technology. For example, if we can end starvation then we should. We can today, we simply find justification not to. I’m not claiming that’s what an AI is but it can be used as such, it’s functionally identical if one sets it up that way.
hey there buddy, i noticed youve got adorable kids there. I’m gonna kidnap them and lock them in with my state’s congressmen and a bucket of lube for a few days. Then I’m gonna visit you and make sure your body has the right number of holes. We probably disagree about what that is, but I think we can come to a compromise in the mid double digits! Compromise! Civility!
I would not call that civility, I would call that disgusting and gross as well as violent and offensive. That’s what you sound like. That’s what everything out of your vile fucking mouth sounds like to any thinking human being. Content matters as much as form, and yours is always without exception violently ignorant to an offensive and dehumanizing degree.
Also, literally nothing works like or is what you think it is. You are wrong. This is a blanket statement. You are wrong. About every single god damnthing so far. Its like you’re ontologically wrong. Like a wizard conjured up a dunning-kruger elemental. Fuck off back to San Francisco, finish your mba at Stanford, and fuck off.
I don’t agree with you which is fine. Also for the record, I’m not from nor have I ever lived in San Francisco but you’re free to believe whatever makes you comfortable. I think you have some other version of my ideas. Like we’re not even really having a discussion, it’s more so you’re battling with what you think I am saying than us actually having discourse. Anyways, seems like you’re going to keep being unpleasant so I’m exiting the discussion.
It can’t be used to solve world hunger, that’s nonsense. We already produce more than twice enough food to feed the world (this will be changing drastically very soon, climate change you know) but since it’ll spoil before it can get to most of the people what with the lack of roads and infrastructure there’s no realistic way to do it that wouldn’t be cartoonishly expensive. Also, that’s not how AI works.
Wait what do you mean by it? Oh AI. I guess that’s my bad for not adding a paragraph. I was saying AI can functionally be used like a parlor wall if someone wanted. As for hunger I was saying we humans can choose to solve world hunger, we choose not to. Also I never said it was a food production issue. You’re right that we definitely produce enough food for everyone yet there’s still starvation. It’s moreso a logistics issue as you pointed out and it’s not as simple as just sending food as that will ultimately have harmful effects on the local economy. You’re right that climate change is an issue and by this point we’re far past solving it by simply changing our behavior, technology will be needed and likely some degree of geo engineering. Worse case scenario we should be planning for a full collapse of the biosphere now. The technology we need for space colonies is about what would be necessary to continue surviving outside of nature just minus the structure and protection from collisions or radiation.
Like I said you’re free to say whatever you want. There’s no harm in me asking for a mutually polite discussion. I don’t agree with your synopsis of what you think I think and that’s also fine. Put firmly the goal is to decrease needless and avoidable suffering for as many people as possible whether that’s with policy or technology. For example, if we can end starvation then we should. We can today, we simply find justification not to. I’m not claiming that’s what an AI is but it can be used as such, it’s functionally identical if one sets it up that way.
You are not being civil. If I say
I would not call that civility, I would call that disgusting and gross as well as violent and offensive. That’s what you sound like. That’s what everything out of your vile fucking mouth sounds like to any thinking human being. Content matters as much as form, and yours is always without exception violently ignorant to an offensive and dehumanizing degree.
Also, literally nothing works like or is what you think it is. You are wrong. This is a blanket statement. You are wrong. About every single god damnthing so far. Its like you’re ontologically wrong. Like a wizard conjured up a dunning-kruger elemental. Fuck off back to San Francisco, finish your mba at Stanford, and fuck off.
I don’t agree with you which is fine. Also for the record, I’m not from nor have I ever lived in San Francisco but you’re free to believe whatever makes you comfortable. I think you have some other version of my ideas. Like we’re not even really having a discussion, it’s more so you’re battling with what you think I am saying than us actually having discourse. Anyways, seems like you’re going to keep being unpleasant so I’m exiting the discussion.
It can’t be used to solve world hunger, that’s nonsense. We already produce more than twice enough food to feed the world (this will be changing drastically very soon, climate change you know) but since it’ll spoil before it can get to most of the people what with the lack of roads and infrastructure there’s no realistic way to do it that wouldn’t be cartoonishly expensive. Also, that’s not how AI works.
Wait what do you mean by it? Oh AI. I guess that’s my bad for not adding a paragraph. I was saying AI can functionally be used like a parlor wall if someone wanted. As for hunger I was saying we humans can choose to solve world hunger, we choose not to. Also I never said it was a food production issue. You’re right that we definitely produce enough food for everyone yet there’s still starvation. It’s moreso a logistics issue as you pointed out and it’s not as simple as just sending food as that will ultimately have harmful effects on the local economy. You’re right that climate change is an issue and by this point we’re far past solving it by simply changing our behavior, technology will be needed and likely some degree of geo engineering. Worse case scenario we should be planning for a full collapse of the biosphere now. The technology we need for space colonies is about what would be necessary to continue surviving outside of nature just minus the structure and protection from collisions or radiation.