Savant

You have a job though. You just get paid in bitcoin. You could be paid in dollars and buy bitcoin.

I make about 10 cents per day, which is 36$ a year. However, I dont work 8 hours a day. More like 1 hour at best.

I'm sure there's freelance work you could do on a computer that would pay more than 10 cents for 1 hour of work a day.

On the contrary, people who work 10 hours a day dont have time to think, so they never become billionaires.

You're working though, cause you watch ads. How much time are you spending on that, and how much do you make an hour? A regular job might be more time-efficient.

Why not spend that time doing work and earning money, then buy bitcoin? You'll get way more return on time spent that way.

Well Remy said outside of making kids, so that's not really relevant. Even if I disagree with Remy.

Such women put more effort into math than either one of us did.

Maybe. But some men put a lot of effort into math and don't make it that far. I think you're ignoring the role IQ plays. Men with learning disabilities aren't gonna get as far with the same effort as a woman with a super high IQ.

I'm saying women being useful aside from making kids is less common than for men.

So women are useful for "anything" besides making kids. Whether men are usually more useful doesn't really change that.

Such women are the exception

Are you arguing women being useful aside from making kids is rare or that it never happens? Because those are two different statements. I disagree with both but it's trivial to disprove the latter.

take any woman out there, she will be worse than math than me if we put equal effort into the subject

There are women making progress on unsolved math problems and winning Olympiads. I think it's unlikely you or most men could make the same progress as the top women with equal effort.

With every useful task out there, every man is better than every woman if they put in equal effort.

The smartest women is not dumber than the dumbest man, if that's what you're implying. If you really want to defend that then we can debate it but it seems so obviously false I'm gonna assume I'm somehow misunderstanding your point.

And even if I granted this as true, men have a finite amount of time to learn tasks, so women can always find some job the man isn't doing. Even before workplace discrimination was illegal, plenty of companies hired women. And they have a pretty big incentive to make money however they can.

If being a member of a below average group made someone not useful, then the vast majority of people would not be useful since they're in the group of "not the smartest or strongest person in the world." That's not how productivity works.

Is a woman useful for anything besides sex/kid making?

Depends on the woman. But can they not do at least most of the things men can do?

I wanted to believe that women could do at least some tasks better than men.

So why have a woman around?

Do women have to do a task better than men on average for there to be women who are productive in some way? There are female inventors, female therapists, female office workers, etc. Due to individual comparative advantage (i.e. different people being good at different things), it's not like you can just replace any women in any role with a man, any more than you could replace any man with another man. Whether or not the average woman beats the average man on some metric seems irrelevant. If you go to the restaurant and you get a waitress, are you gonna leave or demand a male server? Even if there are no male servers available? Seems like that's an example of a woman being useful.

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.