Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
I mean - it’s certainly possible, but you’d still be risking that 500k prize if you got caught.
And most people seem to tap out because of loneliness or starvation, so if you were going to cheat, you’d pretty much have to smuggle in either food or a better way of getting it - like a decent fishing rod and proper lures.
I’ve put things in my ass for no points. 1000 points sure sounds worth it.
They do regular health check-ins with the contestants, and if you’re not losing weight but there’s no footage of you catching food, they’re going to figure out pretty quickly that something’s up.
On top of that, the locations are chosen so that just hiking out to you with food would be a survival challenge in itself - and coming in by boat would almost certainly be noticed.
Interestingly, I’ve just been binge watching the show for the first time. I’m on season 5 currently.
Two
spaces
before
you
press
enter.
But there are also index funds that are not ETFs.
Apparently I’m old enough to be a Lemmy user’s dad.
Find an ETF index fund that’s highly diversified across both sectors and regions, with total expenses under 0.5%, and set up an automatic monthly investment into it. It’s the boring way to invest - but unless you’ve got a crystal ball and can predict the future, I wouldn’t start gambling on individual stocks. This is basically the same advice Warren Buffett would give you.
The few things I’m not buying out of principle are such that I wouldn’t even know if someone else bought it or not. But no, I don’t care. There’s nothing I’m not buying because I think the company that produces it is literally Hitler.
I haven’t claimed that it is. The point is, the only two plausible scenarios I can think of where we don’t eventually reach AGI are: either we destroy ourselves before we get there, or there’s something fundamentally mysterious about the biological computer that is the human brain - something that allows it to process information in a way we simply can’t replicate any other way.
I don’t think that’s the case, since both the brain and computers are made of matter, and matter obeys the laws of physics. But it’s at least conceivable that there could be more to it.
Did you genuinely not understand the point I was making, or are you just being pedantic? “Silicon” obviously refers to current computing substrates, not a literal constraint on all future hardware. If you’d prefer I rewrite it as “in non-biological substrates,” I’m happy to oblige - but I have a feeling you already knew that.
Älä välitä, ei se villekään välittänyt, vaikka sen väliaikaiset välihousut jäi väliaikaisen välitystoimiston väliaikaisen välioven väliin.
Rough translation: Don’t worry about it - Ville didn’t worry either when his temporary long johns got caught in the temporary side door of the temporary temp agency.
The fact that you have to completely rewrite my argument into a strawman before you can attack it tells me all I need to know about who I’m dealing with here. Have a great day.
We’re not even remotely close.
That’s just the other side of the same coin whose flip side claims AGI is right around the corner. The truth is, you couldn’t possibly know either way.
Don’t confuse AGI with LLMs. Both being AI systems is the only thing they have in common. They couldn’t be further apart when it comes to cognitive capabilities.
The path to AGI seems inevitable - not because it’s around the corner, but because of the nature of technological progress itself. Unless one of two things stops us, we’ll get there eventually:
Either there’s something fundamentally unique about how the biological brain processes information - something that cannot, even in principle, be replicated in silicon,
Or we wipe ourselves out before we get the chance.
Barring those, the outcome is just a matter of time. This argument makes no claim about timelines - only trajectory. Even if we stopped AI research for a thousand years, it’s hard to imagine a future where we wouldn’t eventually resume it. That’s what humans do; improve our technology.
The article points to cloning as a counterexample but that’s not a technological dead end, that’s a moral boundary. If one thinks we’ll hold that line forever, I’d call that naïve. When it comes to AGI, there’s no moral firewall strong enough to hold back the drive toward it. Not permanently.
There’s nothing circular in what I said. I made a conditional claim: propaganda aimed at the regime, not the people, is justified when that regime is authoritarian. That’s not “assuming the conclusion” - it’s stating a position based on a distinction you seem eager to ignore. Disagree with it if you want, but at least engage with the actual logic.
They’re generally just referred to as “deep learning” or “machine learning”. The models themselves usually have names of their own, such as AlphaFold, PathAI and Enlitic.
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.
My word filters reliably block 3rd of my front page here. Includes every keyword seen here and much more.