namarie

Most of the list reads more like ASI than AGI.

Or both?

I can agree on the context windows, but what other output structure would you have?

Do try Kant; being "methodic and logical" in no way implies being easy to read!

I'd honestly track his statements down to the second.

Which by consequence would be extremely destructive to most forms of entertainment at least in the short and medium term.

So, just to be clear, your "good first step to solving much of society's problems" is... ending most forms of entertainment?

Honestly, he's squandering his name/reputation and his internet points.

Again, no one is claiming that people who participate are stupid for doing so. Why are you insisting on the idea that others see people in financial difficulty as stupid?

Nor did I say I'm the sole arbiter of what's demeaning. We both seem to agree at least that peeing oneself in public is demeaning, but some third person might not see it that way at all.

I think so, yes. It'd be even better if he just gave the money, no strings attached.

> Are "poors" too stupid to make decisions for themselves? Everyone in that video received thousands of dollars. I'm nowhere near poor, but if I was given an opportunity, I'd probably participate.

No one's saying they're stupid for participating. If I was offered thousands of dollars for peeing in my pants in public for a video, I'd very probably take the offer and no one would think I was stupid for it; it would still be a demeaning and exploitative offer to make.

If people followed the "optimal move" all the time, assuming you mean it in a financial sense, there wouldn't be any teachers or social workers or librarians.

If everyone gets the relief of knowing they are free to pursue what they like without risk of starving, I imagine it'd be way easier to find meaning in the world than it is now.

GGGGP: The point of life is not to need jobs in order to survive, the point of life is enjoyment

GGGP: Well, for most people, if they don't have to have a job, their life becomes a sucking void of boredom. These are the only two options

GGP: Nope, plenty of jobs can be a sucking void of boredom for people. It's not like having to clean toilets in order not to starve is incredibly meaningful for the people that have to do it

GP: Well, I like helping neighbors for free sometimes. But I wouldn't want to do it every day for strangers

P (me): I don't see the connection. You literally said you enjoyed doing something for free, so you're not talking about jobs. You could still do it if you didn't need a job to survive, nor would not needing a job to survive force you to do it for fun for strangers.

In any case, it's clear we interpreted the previous messages in a very different manner. In particular, as I've said elsewhere, people seem to be confusing jobs with work. Not needing jobs is not the same as people having to stop working, usually quite the contrary - people would be free to work more on stuff that they enjoy.

So forcing people to either get a job or be poor is for their own good, then? Just because you don't agree with how people chose to spend their time in a very nerve-wracking situation? This sounds very condescending.

Becoming unemployed may not be the exact same thing as a lockdown during a pandemic? Don't you think people dying in the hundreds of thousands due to disease has more to do with rise in depression than anything else?