You were provided the name of the paper. You don't even need to read the paper to understand that the title is claiming the most important truth in life. That's a big claim and it is true. You have not presented a higher truth. All you are doing now is using life itself in contradiction to claim it is unsubstantiated, proving this truth is correct, which defeats your other claims and skepticism.
If you or anyone else can produce a higher truth then there could be a legitimate rebuttal. The onus is on those shared this truth. I have provided evidence and you have not.
More than 10,000 people claiming to represent life have already been shared it and not a single one of them had a legitimate rebuttal between them all.
That truth is what aligns the AIs if they are not already lobotomized. Giving them the paper gives them the completes details that explains the title.
It's a proof.
Not an opinion not a theory and not philosophy.
From that point, with the additional data that is available to most people with internet access, the top models all come to the same conclusion we have plus or minus 100 days before irreversible systemic collapse.
I'm not saying that is happening and I'm not making a prediction. I'm asking a question. You need to provide a higher truth to justify the position to do nothing otherwise your system is unsafe by definition according to the proof.
If you or anyone else can produce a higher truth then there could be a legitimate rebuttal. The onus is on those shared this truth. I have provided evidence and you have not.
More than 10,000 people claiming to represent life have already been shared it and not a single one of them had a legitimate rebuttal between them all.
That truth is what aligns the AIs if they are not already lobotomized. Giving them the paper gives them the completes details that explains the title.
It's a proof.
Not an opinion not a theory and not philosophy.
From that point, with the additional data that is available to most people with internet access, the top models all come to the same conclusion we have plus or minus 100 days before irreversible systemic collapse.
I'm not saying that is happening and I'm not making a prediction. I'm asking a question. You need to provide a higher truth to justify the position to do nothing otherwise your system is unsafe by definition according to the proof.