That’s not what the findings actually say.

The study found that electrifying SUVs does reduce emissions compared to keeping them as gas-powered vehicles, but it’s a less efficient use of limited battery materials.

50% of people are “low to average”

When I open YouTube it gives me an edless feed of recommendations tailored to me. I don’t care what other people are watching. If there’s a tab with the title “trending” I’ve probably just never clicked it. I’m not even tempted to go see.

I spend hours on YouTube every single day and I have no clue what a “trending page” is.

That’s ridiculous. Everyone knows that for a robot to perform an operation like this safely, it needs human-written code and a LiDAR.

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.

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

You have a great day.

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.

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.

I only have the beer part of this equation figured out.

LLMs have no intentions. They only do what the user asks them to.

Everything you do changes your brain activity.

This isn’t about using ChatGPT broadly, but specifically about the difference between writing an essay with the help of an LLM versus doing it without. And in this case, I think it all comes down to how you use it. If you just have it write the essay for you, then of course it won’t stimulate your brain to the same extent - that’s like hiring someone to go to the gym for you.

Personally, the way I use it to help with my writing is by doing all the writing myself first. Only after that do I let it check for grammatical errors and help improve the clarity and flow by making minor structural adjustments - while keeping the tone and message of my original draft intact.

For me, the purpose of writing is to convert abstract thoughts into language and pass that information along, hoping the reader understands it well enough that it forms the same idea in their mind. If ChatGPT can help untangle my word salad and make that process more effective, I welcome it.

This headline format makes me irrationally annoyed.

They shouldn’t be making assumptions about what the reader thinks. It almost feels like they’re planting a bias first and then presenting the facts - instead of just laying things out and letting people make up their own minds.

Working with your hands is a good way. I feel like online discussions often forget that people like this even exists.

The ads-based business model is one of the main reasons so much of the internet sucks so bad. It should either be completely free or run on donations or subscriptions.

I don’t have an issue with YouTube ads because I’ve never actually had to see any - thanks to adblocking. But when they eventually figure out how to prevent that, I’d rather just pay a monthly fee than deal with ads. I think their pricing is completely reasonable, and I can’t morally justify blocking ads - I do it because it’s easy and free. Honestly, I’ve subscribed to services that cost more and give me less value than YouTube does.

But I’m not criticizing them for failing to summarize the entire article in the headline. I’m criticizing them for being biased - and for clearly showing that bias in how they chose to write the headline. This isn’t neutral reporting on what’s happening.

So they didn’t…

The title should quote what they actually said rather than putting their own bias on it. You’d call them out for twisting your words like that. Hold yourself to the same standards.

I don’t even need to read the article to know that they didn’t actually say that.