Savant

I think you put in a decent effort toward not making it rage bait. It helps that you aren't intentionally inflammatory and clarified what you weren't saying.

There are verification mechanisms governments could use, but it would require the will to do so. If aliens came and threatened to blow up the solar system if we developed AGI, I think we would coordinate to stop it. So really it's a matter of political willingness.

AI will be the key to the salvation of intellectual development and it's universal expansion

Sure, but it might be worth building the safety harness first to make sure it doesn't kill us.

One year of life is worth $495,000, according to the government. So about 2 thousand years, mathematically speaking /s

I'll go watch that and maybe will be informed when I get back.

Good on you for researching the topic. I remember it took me a while to learn how AI works and the doom arguments, and there's still parts I don't fully understand lol.

Fat chance on that

The US is ahead, which means that at the current rate, AI will either (a) serve US interests, or more likely (b) go rogue. China doesn't like either of those, so it's in their interest to end the race.

their AI kills them and not us

I mean, this is less bad than most takeover scenarios but better for the AI not to kill anyone lol

Isn't that what we are going for in this thread?

Well I'd prefer a treaty with China that forces them to slow down too.

I don't think it matters, how do you monitor and restrict programming that happens behind closed doors, especially considering the regulators can't understand the programming.

You can monitor amount of compute and the type of training runs with zero-knowledge proofs. The people behind AI 2027 have written extensively about how this could work.

What if congress passes laws that make the AI company fiscally responsible for any resultant damage caused by their products.

Best case scenario, this bankrupts all frontier AI companies and causes a slowdown. But if they survive until an AI takeover, then saying "you have to pay a fine if you cause the end of the world" is kind of pointless, because it's still the end of the world.

Regulatory capture only works if the regulations don't also harm the company calling for them. Most AI companies are running at a loss and their stock price is all in potential. If they can't develop frontier AI that does not help them and neither does a slowdown.

You're gonna have to be more specific about what your point is.

Regulatory capture is when companies want the government to restrict every company in their industry, including them? Frontier models are the money maker, if they can't develop those it hurts their bottom line. And they've been talking about the dangers like forever, it's just that no one's listened until now.

I was thinking about how AI CEOs pushing for an AI slowdown is making people oppose it and say it's all a marketing scheme. Which makes me think that cigarette companies could have just said something like "cigarettes are dangerous and need to be banned," and suddenly everyone would support cigarettes. When a whistleblower says something and then the CEO agrees, it makes the whistleblower look less cool, kind of like how teenage slang becomes less cool when adults start using it.

If AI companies want AI slowed down, I think a better strategy would be for the CEOs to say, "We can't slow down AI. That would hurt shareholder profits." Then everyone would be demanding the industry be regulated more harshly.

Fair enough. While controversial, I don't think this post is rage bait.

So it might make sense for you to adapt to DebateCraft and the way people communicate here, since you are posting on this forum.

In 2026, it's expected that a Nazi is a generic right winger now. We aren't in 2018 anymore when DEI was a thing. DEI is dead.

I didn't take it as confusing

Every time you've posted, people have assumed the worst of what you meant. You've seen this, there's not a need to debate theory here.

Maybe to some people. If I call myself a Nazi, then I'd expect a Jewish person to ask why and then I can say, "Because some minority groups deserve to be criticized."

No, they're going to take you at face value and you know that.

Eye for an eye revenge, there's a word for that; equality. Equal reciprocal treatment.

Eye for an eye works when the rules are clear. If eye for eye means you just confuse people as to what your point is, it doesn't work.

Right wing men didn't make it about the bear; women did. So it's not the same as the right calling themselves Nazis now.

Okay but if you call yourself a Nazi, that makes it harder to get your actual point across. Maybe your ragebaiting is justified (for the purpose of revenge, I guess?), but it's still ragebaiting.

If I say, "Texans are to the right of Californians", then that is a generalization that is 100% literal.

But it has the same problem as talking in exaggerations, in that your words have multiple possible interpretations and the obvious one isn't the one you actually mean.

Assume every political opinion is literal.

You are the last person who should want people to take your opinions at face value, dude. I have to dig pretty hard to find your actual opinion, because you often present it in an unflattering way up front. "I talk in generalizations" is basically your way of not being literal.

I don't intend for my opinions to be Rage Bait, I just accept that they are.

You said you are trying to trigger emotions, so you are clearly trying to enrage people.

Expect left wingers to lie about their positions to try and persuade the moderate.

I don't think "their fears are rational" is saying the same thing as "in this specific situation, a man is more dangerous than a bear." Those are two different things, and people will fear the thing they tend to encounter more often. Especially since he called the choice "exaggeration and metaphor."

Denmark solved the Greenland problem very smartly and they didn't need to confront Trump. They didn't lose anything either.

It's a mix I think. There's some things Canada can agree to and did but others might be crossing a line for them.

Sidewalker wrote:

Is Trump within his rights, is it legal, is he violating the 1st amendment?

I think it's pretty clear viewpoint discrimination, so a violation of the 1st amendment.

Seeing as Sidewalker doesn't think women should literally choose the bear, I'm not sure there's anything for me to convince him of.

In other words, let's see if you can give me a reason to take him seriously.

You're under no obligation to take him seriously, but I'm not trying to convince you of that. I'm asking if you actually believe women should choose the bear or if you're just being hyperbolic to annoy Remy.

It's not like we have the option of having a reasonable, rational, logical discussion with him

Perhaps, but I think I can have a reasonable, rational, logical discussion with you.

Remy has challenged me to convince you that women should choose encountering a man they don't know over encountering a bear in the forest. If you actually believe women should choose the bear and aren't just trolling Remy, then I'm open to giving it my best shot.

I've convinced Debby on a lot of things (or my trial did). She saw all of my posts and was trying to find what was offensive.

That was her own opinion, that wasn't her being convinced by you. If you wear a t-shirt and I don't think it's offensive, that doesn't mean you successfully convinced me of anything. Also, Debby kinda just says random stuff.

-> I've seen people change their mind here but it's only ever because the other person makes a logical argument.

Examples?

I have, and I've seen SkepticalOne, SatanLucy, and wylted change their minds on minor points based on arguments I made. I could go more in depth but I'm not making this up.

They work on people who are relative fresh slates to an issue. No logical argument will get a planned parenthood worker to become anti abortion (but maybe if they got pregnant and given birth, then they might change their mind off of that, but it could go reverse as well).

Most people here don't work at planned parenthood. And even if they did, the fact that they're on a debate site means they're more open to changing their opinion than most.

Generally, capitas are stupid. Stupid capitas will trust their own beliefs solely off of emotion.

I don't understand what the word "capita" means in this context.

People in general have an emotional attachment to various things that I find bad. Logic doesn't work on them. Only emotional responses have a chance of working on them. This means I have no choice but to Rage Bait.

Your emotional arguments have convinced zero people to my knowledge. I've seen people change their mind here but it's only ever because the other person makes a logical argument. I think people here are more inclined to listen to logic given that it's a debate site, and even if they weren't, logical arguments must succeed at convincing people to some extent, or we would just reach an information heat death where beliefs are the result of random emotions and we can't trust any of our own beliefs. And then you couldn't even trust the beliefs on which your argument depends.

But I sort of know how those discussions would go in a way that's extremely predictable, and rather than do the same repetitive stuff like a script, I'd rather just cut to the chase.

So you clearly know what we mean by rage bait and you are doing it anyway. Hence, intent...

You don't speed up the conversation though; in fact, you make it take longer. People don't understand what you mean because you skip a few steps. A better strategy would be: (1) say the line in a non-ragebait way, (2) anticipate common objections they might make, if you know how the convo would go, and (3) respond to those common objections. Maybe you are trying to do (2) when you write out scripted convos, but try to take the strongest arguments the other side might make rather than the weakest ones. Or list a few responses depending on the different responses they might have. It'll make the post longer, but you end up spending more time as it is just getting people to understand what you actually mean.

Could be true, but I think the tariffs don't help either.

Wait so first you wanted them to negotiate, now you don't want them to? I'm not sure I understand your position.

I agree, but I also think that description is a bit harsh. They are negotiating and showing some legitimate leverage even if they sometimes make threats they don't carry out to the letter.