scandox

Eventually of course this must be true, but eventually is a very long time and thus not susceptible of reasonable analysis.

I think a realist would likely imagine a long period of suffering and confusion rather than extinction (which is actually a sort of psychic panacea).

The article isn't about AI. It's about investment. And that quote I think tells us something about the man. Who is likely the same man he was in 2021

> In an interview with CNBC in 2021, Trainer acknowledged that “crazy stuff happens” and New Constructs doesn’t always get it right.

> “I can’t let that bother me,” he said at the time. “I have to stay true to what I think is right.”

Monkey remains true to darts, dartboard.

Lots of debate about luck vs achievement here. Just wanted to point out: they definitely did succeed in not being slaughtered and replaced. So in that sense they owned their success.

I can't say if the choice is right or wrong really, these are not easy choices. I use Arch Linux and generally install custom things from source, but I'm not necessarily your ideal market!

I gave 2 minutes to trying to find a linux download and didn't succeed. Not feeling too smart!

One word on rings: degloving

But why write these comments with AI?

It's a correction. What the model does is not real contradiction. So more nuance is welcome in this case - even if at another layer it's tongue in cheek

> getting the AI to “try to do the right thing” by human standards.

Are these scientists really this hideously naive? If only Stanislaw Lem was alive to adequately dramatize the absurd, childish simplicity of these technicians.

It's no Sopwith