smath

If they grow to 20T then buying the index will also be a good investment but with a good risk hedge.

Many of the reactions are some version of 'pissed off', which I totally understand. This reaction stands out and resonates with me:

> With these AI-generated papers, I feel that we, as a community, are not applying the same standards of quality and rigour. They can simply release multiple 100+ page papers claiming to have solved this or that problem, often with redundant arguments, unclear logical structure, multiple dead ends, and strange or unsettling terminology — in other words, slop. And we are then expected to go through it, check it, clean it up, simplify it, and explain what is actually going on. This comes at a considerable cost to us in terms of time and effort, while they can simply move on and slop-bulldoze the next conjecture. And, of course, the credit remains theirs. In some sense, we are willingly contributing to our own demise.

I'm not a mathematician, so I didn't even try to read it. But if it is unreadable slop -- then why should we (humans) believe it is correct? And why should professional mathematicians labor through reading it?

Seems to me like we need to create a credible threat to the AI of mad (mutually assured destruction)? This is what addressed the question during the Cold War of “will nuclear weapons kill all humans” (if historical documentaries and movies are to be believed). Coordination between governments or corporations to limit AI is a hopeless strategy — because it is a classical example of prisoners dilemma / tragedy of the commons. We can see it hasn’t worked for climate change.

Anyone know of this (MAD) is being seriously thought of?

That may be, but I think my point about the decadent lifestyle DURING the period of empire still stands.

This has it backwards. The Victorian elite had a high standard of life because they had an empire that funded their decadent lifestyle - at the expense of their colonies! They were cushioned from negative consequences of their be debaucherous lifestyle.

Such macro effects exist today as well, in certain countries, that enjoy exorbitant privileges.

A focus on STEM is how a up and coming nation builds itself — innovation, and making something the world wants, rather than subjugation or rent seeking.

This is factually accurate - I agree with the description. But I think this new system makes it sound like the ageing parents only need financial and mechanical help -- (handyman etc.), what about emotional support? No, I don't think phone calls cut it. Humans did not evolve to live far away from their kin.

That does make some sense to me! Ty

Could you explain these a bit more (or maybe provide a pointer to they mean):

> "atomization of society that industrialization and contemporary capitalism invite."

How & why exactly do they invite atomization?

> "Relational needs get pegged to currency and become transactional... career becomes a necessary way to fund those transactions"

By this do you mean something like: instead of relying on friends and family for interdependece, we pay for services in a formal economy ?

> When children are older, they take care of their parents and grandparents.

This is a core value in many eastern cultures. I'm not trying to put down western cultures - only pointing out a difference - I do not believe it is a core value of western cultures (i'd love to be proven wrong of course).

Also, when children grow up and move away, or immigrate to a different countries, this produces problems to the ageing parents.

Regardless of whether someone did earn a nest egg, raising an alarm still matters for the rest of the world

Yes correct, I agree with that statement -- we do not know that for sure.

I cannot prove that they are, and I cannot prove they are not. I'm not convinced that the burden of proof lies on either side. To make a statement like that in the opening lines as if its obvious seems genuinely presumptous.

Separately, I think 'conscious' is not a well defined / universally agreed upon term.

This are the opening lines:

> AIs are not conscious. They do not feel, experience, or suffer. They do not have innate preferences or underlying motivations.

How do we know that? This bit is stated as if its obvious. Can anyone prove this? Event he word conscious is not well defined.