No disagreement there. While it’s possible that Trump himself might not be - but also might be - guilty of any wrongdoing in this particular case, he sure acts like someone who is. And if he’s not protecting himself, then he’s protecting other powerful people around him who may have dirt on him, which they can use as leverage to stop him from throwing them under the bus without taking himself down in the process.

But that’s a bit beside the point. My original argument was about refraining from accusing him of being a child rapist on insufficient evidence, no matter how much it might serve someone’s political agenda or how satisfying it might feel to finally see him face consequences. If there’s undeniable proof that he is guilty of what he’s being accused of here, then by all means he should be prosecuted. But I’m advocating for due process. These are extremely serious accusations that should not be spread as facts when there’s no way to know - no matter who we’re talking about.

It’s actually the opposite of a very specific definition - it’s an extremely broad one. “AI” is the parent category that contains all the different subcategories, from the chess opponent on an old Atari console all the way up to a hypothetical Artificial Superintelligence, even though those systems couldn’t be more different from one another.

It’s a system designed to generate natural-sounding language, not to provide factual information. Complaining that it sometimes gets facts wrong is like saying a calculator is “stupid” because it can’t write text. How could it? That was never what it was built for. You’re expecting general intelligence from a narrowly intelligent system. That’s not a failure on the LLM’s part - it’s a failure of your expectations.

I don’t think you even know what you’re talking about.

You can define intelligence however you like, but if you come into a discussion using your own private definitions, all you get is people talking past each other and thinking they’re disagreeing when they’re not. Terms like this have a technical meaning for a reason. Sure, you can simplify things in a one-on-one conversation with someone who doesn’t know the jargon - but dragging those made-up definitions into an online discussion just muddies the water.

The correct term here is “AI,” and it doesn’t somehow skip over the word “artificial.” What exactly do you think AI stands for? The fact that normies don’t understand what AI actually means and assume it implies general intelligence doesn’t suddenly make LLMs “not AI” - it just means normies don’t know what they’re talking about either.

And for the record, the term is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), not GAI.

Claims like this just create more confusion and lead to people saying things like “LLMs aren’t AI.”

LLMs are intelligent - just not in the way people think.

Their intelligence lies in their ability to generate natural-sounding language, and at that they’re extremely good. Expecting them to consistently output factual information isn’t a failure of the LLM - it’s a failure of the user’s expectations. LLMs are so good at generating text, and so often happen to be correct, that people start expecting general intelligence from them. But that’s never what they were designed to do.

There are plenty of similarities in the output of both the human brain and LLMs, but overall they’re very different. Unlike LLMs, the human brain is generally intelligent - it can adapt to a huge variety of cognitive tasks. LLMs, on the other hand, can only do one thing: generate language. It’s tempting to anthropomorphize systems like ChatGPT because of how competent they seem, but there’s no actual thinking going on. It’s just generating language based on patterns and probabilities.

I have next to zero urge to “keep up with the news.” I’m under no obligation to know what’s going on in the world at all times. If something is important, I’ll hear about it from somewhere anyway - and if I don’t hear about it, it probably wasn’t that important to begin with.

I’d argue the “optimal” amount of news is whatever’s left after you actively take steps to avoid most of it. Unfiltered news consumption in today’s environment is almost certainly way, way too much.

Large language models aren’t designed to be knowledge machines - they’re designed to generate natural-sounding language, nothing more. The fact that they ever get things right is just a byproduct of their training data containing a lot of correct information. These systems aren’t generally intelligent, and people need to stop treating them as if they are. Complaining that an LLM gives out wrong information isn’t a failure of the model itself - it’s a mismatch of expectations.

Trust what? I’m simply pointing out that we don’t know whether he’s actually done anything illegal or not. A lot of people seem convinced that he did - which they couldn’t possibly be certain of - or they’re hoping he did, which is a pretty awful thing to hope for when you actually stop and think about the implications. And then there are those who don’t even care whether he did anything or not, they just want him convicted anyway - which is equally insane.

Also, being “on the list” is not the same thing as being a child rapist. We don’t even know what this list really is or why certain people are on it. Anyone connected to Epstein in any capacity would dread having that list released, regardless of the reason they’re on it, because the result would be total destruction of their reputation.

My word filters reliably block 3rd of my front page here. Includes every keyword seen here and much more.

You’re just making my point for me.

And I’m not talking about “being on a list” but about being a child rapist. Two wildly different things.

if she comes out and says that the president was… not involved in any criminal activity.

Which, lets not forget, may very well be true. Wishing it to not be true is wishing that a child got raped only because the consequences of that would further one’s political agenda.

Way to move the goalposts.

If you take that question seriously for a second - AlphaFold doesn’t spew chemicals or drain lakes. It’s a piece of software that runs on GPUs in a data center. The environmental cost is just the electricity it uses during training and prediction.

Now compare that to the way protein structures were solved before: years of wet lab work with X‑ray crystallography or cryo‑EM, running giant instruments, burning through reagents, and literally consuming tons of chemicals and water in the process. AlphaFold collapses that into a few megawatt‑hours of compute and spits out a 3D structure in hours instead of years.

So if the concern is environmental footprint, the AI way is dramatically cleaner than the old human‑only way.

Artificial intelligence isn’t designed to maximize human fulfillment. It’s built to minimize human suffering.

What it cannot do is answer the fundamental questions that have always defined human existence: Who am I? Why am I here? What should I do with my finite time on Earth?

Expecting machines to resolve existential questions is like expecting a calculator to write poetry. We’re demanding the wrong function from the right tool.

Pretty weird statements. There’s no such thing as just “AI” - they should be more specific. LLMs aren’t designed to maximize human fulfillment or minimize suffering. They’re designed to generate natural-sounding language. If they’re talking about AGI, then that’s not designed for any one thing - it’s designed for everything.

Comparing AGI to a calculator makes no sense. A calculator is built for a single, narrow task. AGI, by definition, can adapt to any task. If a question has an answer, an AGI has a far better chance of figuring it out than a human - and I’d argue that’s true even if the AGI itself isn’t conscious.

It won’t solve anything

Go tell that to AlphaFold which solved a decades‑old problem in biology by predicting protein structures with near lab‑level accuracy.

I mean - it’s certainly possible, but you’d still be risking that 500k prize if you got caught.

And most people seem to tap out because of loneliness or starvation, so if you were going to cheat, you’d pretty much have to smuggle in either food or a better way of getting it - like a decent fishing rod and proper lures.

I’ve put things in my ass for no points. 1000 points sure sounds worth it.

They do regular health check-ins with the contestants, and if you’re not losing weight but there’s no footage of you catching food, they’re going to figure out pretty quickly that something’s up.

On top of that, the locations are chosen so that just hiking out to you with food would be a survival challenge in itself - and coming in by boat would almost certainly be noticed.

Interestingly, I’ve just been binge watching the show for the first time. I’m on season 5 currently.

Two
spaces
before
you
press
enter.

I haven’t claimed that it is. The point is, the only two plausible scenarios I can think of where we don’t eventually reach AGI are: either we destroy ourselves before we get there, or there’s something fundamentally mysterious about the biological computer that is the human brain - something that allows it to process information in a way we simply can’t replicate any other way.

I don’t think that’s the case, since both the brain and computers are made of matter, and matter obeys the laws of physics. But it’s at least conceivable that there could be more to it.