I get the feeling that many Americans are under the illusion that most Europeans live in big cities like Paris or Amsterdam. And while it may be true that people in those cities have different shopping habits compared to Americans in similarly sized cities, that doesn’t reflect the reality for all - or even most - Europeans. For me and most of my friends, going to the supermarket once or twice a week by car has always been the norm.

It’s your friend’s claim I’m criticizing - not yours.

Europeans aren’t a homogeneous blob - we’re individuals. There’s no universal consensus among us about what counts as a reasonable distance to the grocery store.

I’m not saying ASI would think in some magical new way. I’m saying it could process so much more data with such precision that it would detect patterns or connections we physically can’t. Like how an AI can tell biological sex from a retina scan, but no human doctor can do even knowing it’s possible. That’s not just “faster logic.” It’s a cognitive scale we simply don’t have. I see no reason to assume that we’re anywhere near the far end of the intelligence spectrum.

My comment about it’s potenttial persuation capabilities was more of the dangers of such system. That an ASI might be so good at persuasion, threat construction, and lying that it could influence us in ways we don’t even fully realize. Not because it’s “divine” - but because it’s just far more competent at manipulating human behavior than any human is.

No and never have as I simply don’t feel like I have the need for it. I didn’t even when my phone only had a physical numpad.

Never as I don’t drink tea nor own a microwave.

Beginning by insulting your opponent isn’t exactly the best way to ensure they’ll finish reading your message.

You have a great day.

Depends on who I compare myself to and how one defines “rich.” To me, it means someone whose passive income exceeds their spending - and I’m nowhere even close to that… yet.

The issue isn’t whether we can imagine a smarter entity - obviously we can, as we do in sci-fi. But what we imagine are just results of human intelligence. They’re always bounded by our own cognitive limits. We picture a smarter person, not something categorically beyond us.

The real concept behind Artificial Superintelligence is that it wouldn’t just be smarter in the way Einstein was smarter than average - it would be to us what we are to ants. Or less generously, what we are to bacteria. We can observe bacteria under a microscope, study their behavior, even manipulate them - and they have no concept of what we are, or that we even exist. That’s the kind of intelligence gap we’re talking about.

Imagine trying to argue against a perfect proof. Take something as basic as 1 + 1 = 2. Now imagine an argument for something much more complex - like a definitive answer to climate change, or consciousness, or free will - delivered with the same kind of clarity and irrefutability. That’s the kind of persuasive power we’re dealing with. Not charisma. Not rhetoric. Not “debating skills.” But precision of thought orders of magnitude beyond our own.

The fact that we think we can comprehend what this would be like is part of the limitation. Just like a five-year-old thinks they understand what it means to be an adult - until they grow up and realize they had no idea.

I don’t. I do it the boring way - buying cheap, highly diversified ETF index funds.

I just ran the numbers for the first time ever, and it adds up to 34 months - which I realize is a pretty privileged place to be. However, I’m by no means rich; I just live well below my means and invest all my savings.

It’s not that the output of an ASI would be incomprehensible but that as humans we’re simply incapable of predicting what it would do/say because we’re not it. We’re incapable of even imagining how convincing of an argument a system like this could make.

There’s no such thing as “actual AI.” AI is just a broad term that encompasses all artificial intelligence systems. A chess engine, ChatGPT, and HAL 9000 are all examples of AI - despite being fundamentally different. A chess engine is a narrow AI, ChatGPT is a large language model, and HAL 9000 would qualify as AGI.

It could be argued that AGI is inevitable - assuming general intelligence isn’t substrate-dependent (meaning it doesn’t require a biological brain) and that we don’t destroy ourselves before we get there. But the truth is, nobody knows how difficult it is to create AGI, or whether we’re anywhere close. There’s a lot of hype around generative AI right now because it remotely resembles what AGI might look like - but that doesn’t guarantee it’s taking us any closer. It could be a stepping stone - or a total dead end.

So what I hear you asking is: “Can’t we just use task-specific narrow AI instead of creating AGI?” And yes, we could - but we’re never going to stop improving these systems. And every step of progress brings us closer to AGI, whether that’s the goal or not. The only things that might stop us are hitting a fundamental wall (like substrate dependence) or wiping ourselves out.

There’s also the economic incentive. AGI would be the ultimate wealth generator. All the incentives point toward building it. It’s a winner-takes-all scenario: if you’re the first to create a true AGI, your competition will likely never catch up - because from that point on, the AGI can improve itself. And then the improved version can further improve itself, and so on. That’s how you get to the singularity: an intelligence explosion that leads to Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) - a level of intelligence far beyond human comprehension.

Whether it be AI apocalypse or utopia, it’s not LLM’s that people think will take us there. It’s AGI/ASI and nobody knows how long it’ll take us to develop a system like that. Could take 2 years or it could take 50.

Sure, but the fact that fear of punishment doesn’t deter everyone, doesn’t mean it doesn’t deter anyone. Good example from my own life would be speeding; the fear of losing my license is the main reason I don’t do it.

Agreed. I don’t even believe in free will, so prison makes even less sense to me - in the sense that we’re punishing people for doing something they couldn’t not have done. That said, I have no doubt that the fear of imprisonment acts as a deterrent - at least to some extent. And just because someone can’t help themselves doesn’t mean they should be allowed to roam free, harming others.

Ideally, we’d place people like that on a private island with no one to harm, where they could still live a good life. But since that’s not realistic, prison it is. I still think prisoners should be treated well, no matter the crime. Punishment itself doesn’t make much sense to me - but the fear of punishment does. And that fear isn’t credible unless we follow through.

If you can find a working port of Google Camera mod, that’s by far going to give you the best image quality, though it does a lot of post-processing - in a good way.

And just to be clear, I’m not talking about the one you find in the Play Store. I mean the Google Pixel camera app that you can sideload through your browser. As far as I know, these versions don’t communicate with Google servers.

Lets cap the population of cities to 10 000 and make everyone live in a small town.

The vast majority of them as I don’t really watch movies or tv-series at all. Every time I give one a chance it ends up being a dissapointment and then I’m just less likely to try again.

I prefer YouTube.

I haven’t had games on my phone for closer to a decade.