> I repeat everyone that is loling at x-risk an idiot
I mean this is the nicest possible way and hope that you consider it constructive: you're willfully misconstruing what I am saying and then calling me an idiot. This isn't a nice thing to do and shuts down the conversation.
If I believed you were operating in good faith, I might take the time to explain why my practical/scientific experience makes me incredulous of what's technically possible, and why my life experience makes me suspicious of the personalities involved in pushing AI x-risk.
I might also provide a history lesson on Einstein and Oppenheimer, which is instructive to how we should think about x-risk (spoiler: both advocated for and were involved in the development of atomic weapons).
But since you're calling me an idiot and misconstruing my words, I have no interest in conversing with you. Have a good day.
I mean this is the nicest possible way and hope that you consider it constructive: you're willfully misconstruing what I am saying and then calling me an idiot. This isn't a nice thing to do and shuts down the conversation.
If I believed you were operating in good faith, I might take the time to explain why my practical/scientific experience makes me incredulous of what's technically possible, and why my life experience makes me suspicious of the personalities involved in pushing AI x-risk.
I might also provide a history lesson on Einstein and Oppenheimer, which is instructive to how we should think about x-risk (spoiler: both advocated for and were involved in the development of atomic weapons).
But since you're calling me an idiot and misconstruing my words, I have no interest in conversing with you. Have a good day.