upvote

points

by kypro3 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby addaon3 hours ago|
next
[-]
> "probably only 20% chance we all die"

Bad news for you -- there's a 100% chance we all die. Sorry to be the one to tell you.

reply
upvoteby cubefox3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Logical mistake. There is a difference between every human dying eventually and humanity going extinct. The former doesn't imply the latter. The previous commenter clearly meant the latter.
reply
upvoteby kaonwarb3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
What makes you think separate nations would effectively cooperate in this way?
reply
upvoteby kypro10 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Might as well try, no? Or do you think it's better we just risk it? I mean it's not like the West has any hard or soft power to encourage cooperation.
reply
upvoteby armchairhacker3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
You’re not necessarily wrong, but math proofs aren’t going to unify today’s brainrotted population.
reply
upvoteby lkey3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Your 'serious' proposal is unlimited global military bombing campaign on civilian infrastructure by the United States (which is currently losing a war using the same strategy) to 'solve safety' preemptively against a 20% number you just made up?

And you accuse the 'other side' of 'suicidal apathy'??

You should put down the AI and do some self-reflection on how you came to hold these views.

reply
upvoteby armchairhacker3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
GP said cooperation, never implied the US would do it alone.
reply
upvoteby deaton3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
If the thesis that "If anybody builds it, everyone dies" is true, or has any chance of becoming true, then it is the logical thing to do. As Geoffrey Hinton said, "If you want to know what it's like not to be the apex intelligence, ask a chicken."
reply
upvoteby lkey2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It is not 'logical' to imagine a hypothetical doomsday scenario that justifies a preemptive nuclear war. (which is what the grandparent commenter's bio contemplates, 'nuke the datacenters' is their central credo).

Does it bother you that the people who are publicly cocksure that P(doom) is moments away are the same people that have profited most handsomely from that pronouncement?

That the 'humanists' that want to do 'altruism' for 'potential future humans' and are the same people that commit fraud and theft at a civilizational scale, then sell this 'intelligence' to any child-incinerating militaries with spare cash?

It's not wrong to want to do good, but if a system that is branded 'do (the most) good' commits great evils, you are morally and intellectually obligated to step back and reconsider how you are spending your time.

Also, I asked a chicken and a feral rock dove what it's like to be not be 'apex' and they burbled at me and kept eating millet and sunflower seeds.

Would you like me to follow up with them? I'm not sure what point you expected them to make.

reply
upvoteby cubefox1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> It is not 'logical' to imagine a hypothetical doomsday scenario that justifies a preemptive nuclear war

You hallucinated the "preemptive nuclear war". He didn't say anything about nukes. That's your own invention.

> Does it bother you that the people who are publicly cocksure that P(doom) is moments away

20% is not "cocksure". The "moments" is again an exaggeration.

reply
upvoteby lkey57 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
I did not, I read kypro's (the OP I was replying to) bio, to whit:

Every problem is a search problem. Nuke the data centers.

P(doom) = 98.9% (Aug-2026) P(doom) = 98.2% (July-2026) P(doom) = 98.2% (Jun-2026) P(doom) = 98.5% (May-2026) P(doom) = 98.8% (mid-April-2026) P(doom) = 98.7% (April-2026) P(doom) = 98.7% (March-2026) P(doom) = 98.5% (mid-Feb-2026) P(doom) = 97% (Feb-2026) P(doom) = 94% (Jan-2026) P(doom) = 93% (Dec-2025) P(doom) = 95% (July-2025)

reply
upvoteby samatman59 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
If the Judeo-Bolshevist theses were true, then Operation Barbarossa was the logical thing to do, and everything which came with it.

Powerful word, `if`. "You're not only wrong you're a fulminating psychopath" is a perfectly valid response to getting it wrong like a fulminating psychopath.

reply
upvoteby DarmokJalad17013 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
No.
reply
upvoteby bigyabai3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> We are now at the point where RSI is feasible

  What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
- Hitchen's Razor
reply
upvoteby apetresc3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The evidence is abundant and nearly impossible to ignore without increasingly focused effort.
reply
upvoteby bigyabai26 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
So abundant that you won't link anything? Send a peer-reviewed paper then, let's settle this.
reply
upvoteby ghjkghjkghj3 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
There are some genuinely insane takes in this thread on both sides but this takes the cake.
reply
upvoteby iwontberude3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That's because its satire, the tell was "not excluding targeted military strikes"
reply
upvoteby ghjkghjkghj3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Gonna say the edit they made removes the satire possibility.
reply
upvoteby cubefox3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
A few years ago the majority of Hacker News dismissed LLMs as not much more than stochastic parrots who were decades away from doing any serious work, autonomously escaping containment and hacking Hugging Face, or outperforming most professional mathematicians at proving theorems. These things were labeled "insane" and "science fiction" despite the rapid progress we had already seen.

Now you are again postulating that there would be no more extreme progress in the near future. That's actually more "insane".

reply
upvoteby GPerson2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Being right about the thing that’s genocides all culture and likely worse isn’t such a great thing to brag about, but go ahead.
reply