And what?

“Hey! You the guy who posted on Lemmy??”

whatever are male bimbos called, for example?

Bimbo is italian and it means a male-infant. The femine equivalent is bimba.

Nowhere is it written that an actual AGI system would be aligned with the hopes and desires of its creator. That’s a baseless assumption that we shouln’t take as gospel.

That has nothing to do with your original claim.

There doesn’t exists an agreed upon definition for what we mean by “intelligence” which makes this a bit strange claim to make. What are you actually even saying?

I don’t see him claiming AI would do that. He very clearly says that he hopes this would be the case.

That pretty much aligns with what I said about this a few days back in a different thread:

Humans are inherently flawed. Even the best ones are biased, emotional, irrational and easily manipulated. My (perhaps) unpopular opinion is that politics will never run like a well-oiled machine that treats everyone fairly for as long as they’re run by people.

A truly benign, aligned and independent AGI system is the only thing I can even imagine that could at least in theory offer the kind of governing system we actually need. And I truly mean an independent agent with our well-being as the guiding principle. Not one with an inbuilt bias toward who made it.

Now, whether that’ll ever be actually possible is a different story but the “best case scenario” for a human-run government and an AI-run government are light-years apart.

Just the kind of headline the people who don’t like rich people are likely to engage with.

How can you tell? It might very well be considering how many fancy words were used there. Nothing about that reads as not-AI.

It is censored. Just in a unconventional manner.

That technique doesn’t work here. This isn’t a video and it haven’t been pixelated either.

How is it easy to bypass?

Sorry, but what’s the witch hunt for again?

Why not? It’s only “bad” compared to newer Abloys.

I’m happy to hear that you still think about me.

No, you don’t like me.

And what did I do this time? I asked you to provide evidence for a claim you made. That’s literally all I did. Had such evidence existed you would’ve provided it but you didn’t. I called you out and you got offended by it.

I don’t think I’m the issue here - you just appear to be a hateful person and you don’t even seem to need a reason for it. I mean… look at your modlog - this is what you do.

And what are you hoping to achieve by telling me this? I’m genuinely asking.

I don’t see anyone here making such claim. Thus my response to you in the first place.

Also, I take that you do believe in free will? Then why do you suggest evil people lack the capacity to change? Those two seem to be in conflict.

You didn’t pick your desire to be contrarian and you couldn’t choose not to be.

Rewinding a video is a bad example in two ways: it does not rewind the universe to the exact same state it was before and secondly, the video still plays out exactly the same every single time - just like I said.

My argument was that you could not have done otherwise. I never claimed that choices aren’t being made. They are - based on things that are outside of your control. You don’t author them. In fact the whole concept of “I” is just another side of the same coin. There is no “self” sitting somewhere there behind one’s face, looking out into the world and authoring decisions. It’s all brain chemistry, brain is made of matter and matter obeys the laws of physics. There isn’t anything separate that’s standing outside of that, free from the influences of cause and effect.

It feels like freedom because the action aligns with your desires. You do X because you want to do X or you do Y because you don’t want what follows if you don’t do Y. To claim you could do something you don’t want to or don’t have to is an impossible claim. You can punch a wall and hurt your hand to try and make a point but that’s still an action motivated by wanting.

I wasn’t questioning whether anyone has ever done this. I was questioning whether they have even a single piece of evidence suggesting that this particular person has done so or if this accusation is purely motivated by simply not liking them which does not justify spreading disinformation.

You’re arguing against a stance that no one is making. Nobody is suggesting that no free will implies freedom from consequences. There is no stronger indicator of future behaviour than past behaviour. A violent person doesn’t get a free pass just because he’s not ultimately responsible for his behaviour in the same way as we don’t let a grizzly bear freely wander around a neighbourhood. The bear gets shot because it’s dangerous, not because it’s morally flawed.