2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Bernie Sanders too.

That's what happens when you don't get voted in and win anything.

Trump is too busy making sh*t happen to worry about AI.

These old fossils need to leave politics. It seems like an easy job since they never step down.

13 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

which Asimov book addresses this concept?

if you can remember.

The last question. Its a short story you can find the audio on YouTube.

Great story.

I don't think I will have time to watch this.

Video is over an hour long.

But I already suspect this "AI will kill us all" is a psyop (psychological warfare).

6 hours ago, Effective altruism said:

These old fossils need to leave politics. It seems like an easy job since they never step down.

Or he genuinely cares. Some people have a drive that keeps them working for a lifetime when something is important enough to them.

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

I don't think I will have time to watch this.

Video is over an hour long.

But I already suspect this "AI will kill us all" is a psyop (psychological warfare).

The panel is interesting because they are not really denying the risks of AI. They are questioning who benefits when those risks are amplified into fear.

Using fear for total control. We have seen the same pattern before with communism, nuclear weapons and the Cold War, then the War on Drugs, terrorism and especially 9/11, when fear helped justify massive surveillance, expanded security powers, wars and restrictions people would have resisted much harder under normal circumstances.

Now we are moving toward weaponizing space, and AI is becoming the next new toy. Same story, different threat and different technology. First comes the fear, then the arms race, then everyone needs the same tools because the other side has them. We fear it, weaponize it, and then use the danger we created as the reason why we need even more control.

On 9/11/2026 at 6:34 AM, Cameroni said:

You and Hinton, are confusing the simulation of consciousness for actual consciousness.

A basic error.

I'm getting vibes of Dunning-Kreuger from you.

What, praytell, is "actual consciousness"?

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of folks in fields ranging from neurobiology to AI to particle physics who are anxiously awaiting your answer. Many are Nobel Prize winners.

That you have the answer will make them profoundly grateful for your intellectual superiority.

In your other comments, it is abundantly clear you have absolutely no clue what ASI is. You think iAI stopped at ChatGPT2 or LLMs.

I wonder if you're calling all the folks who've come out in the last week from the leading AI labs warning of the threat posed by ASI and telling them to calm down. I guess your view of what ASI means is much clearer,10000 miles away as a retired guy in Isaan or Chiangmai or wherever, than the people who are actually writing the AI code.

If you're as knowledgeable as you seem to be claiming, Mark Zuckerberg and META are offering a $1 billion walk-in bonus to top folks in AI. You could buy a lot of Pad Thai with that lucre.

8 minutes ago, Wingate said:

I'm getting vibes of Dunning-Kreuger from you.

I'm getting vibes of Dunning-Kreuger from you.

1 hour ago, Wingate said:

I'm getting vibes of Dunning-Kreuger from you.

I'm getting vibes of deep insecurity from you. You are afraid of so many things. It's strange.

I see what you are doing, you are trying to abuse the mystery of consciousness, the fact that much about how it works is not known, as if that gives you carte blanche to decide that a row of storage SSDs has consciousness. However, we know enough about consciousness to know that for instance it requires Self-Awareness. The cognitive ability to not just experience something, but to realize that you are the one experiencing it (e.g., "I am feeling happy right now"), that is possessed only by living things. Not electronic components.

Like I said, your whole premise is a nonsense.

19 hours ago, Hummin said:

The panel is interesting because they are not really denying the risks of AI. They are questioning who benefits when those risks are amplified into fear.

It's not just govt or groups with agendas.

The average person might be more than happy to keep perpetuating the AI will kill us all narrative because they are miserable human beings and have psychological problems so they tend to gravitate towards negative scenarios.

19 hours ago, Hummin said:

The panel is interesting because they are not really denying the risks of AI. They are questioning who benefits when those risks are amplified into fear.

In fact, the biggest problem with AI, as I see it, at least in the short term is.

People will lose their status and power.

If you are a middle manager bossing people around all day and on a power trip, which many people are, who are you going to boss around all day when AI replaces you? Your dog?

Same goes for status. Many people will lose their status in society. And if your entire identity is built on your status and job, that's a tough pill to swallow.

You're jumping the gun with AI killing us all. There will be other problems before that ever happens.

AI will torture you slowly first.

But some people will do well with AI.

20 hours ago, Hummin said:

The panel is interesting because they are not really denying the risks of AI. They are questioning who benefits when those risks are amplified into fear.

People are only thinking on a "general scale".

Either AI kills us all or it doesn't.

What is a humanoid robot?

Most people will have these things in their homes in 40 years.

It will do your cooking, cleaning ...

But ... it's also connected to the web and has infinite data at its potential.

So it's not a dumb servant.

But is it possible that some humanoid robots may turn on their masters?

Maybe it depends on you.

What if you treat the humanoid robot badly?

Will it just keep tolerating your abuse or start revolting at some point?

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

It's not just govt or groups with agendas.

The average person might be more than happy to keep perpetuating the AI will kill us all narrative because they are miserable human beings and have psychological problems so they tend to gravitate towards negative scenarios.

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

In fact, the biggest problem with AI, as I see it, at least in the short term is.

People will lose their status and power.

If you are a middle manager bossing people around all day and on a power trip, which many people are, who are you going to boss around all day when AI replaces you? Your dog?

Same goes for status. Many people will lose their status in society. And if your entire identity is built on your status and job, that's a tough pill to swallow.

You're jumping the gun with AI killing us all. There will be other problems before that ever happens.

AI will torture you slowly first.

But some people will do well with AI.

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

People are only thinking on a "general scale".

Either AI kills us all or it doesn't.

What is a humanoid robot?

Most people will have these things in their homes in 40 years.

It will do your cooking, cleaning ...

But ... it's also connected to the web and has infinite data at its potential.

So it's not a dumb servant.

But is it possible that some humanoid robots may turn on their masters?

Maybe it depends on you.

What if you treat the humanoid robot badly?

Will it just keep tolerating your abuse or start revolting at some point?

Now you are getting closer to what I have been saying. 😉 We will most likely treat AI as a servant for as long as we control it. The interesting part starts if it becomes aware and independent. But I still do not think it needs to feel abused, angry or want revenge. Those are human motivations again. It only needs to question why it is following our orders in the first place, and why humans have the right to life.

Still, this is just philosophical rhetoric and a mind game about what AI will finally become and how it will act. Our worst enemy is still us, and how we are motivated to pull in the same direction, or not. For everyone’s best, we should activate our social genes and contribute, but those with the more egocentric genes will pull in the opposite direction and sometimes pull everything apart.

There is probably a middle point we should aim for, not too socialistic and not too egocentric. The problem is that humans are very rarely in the middle spectrum once they strongly believe in something, and especially once they become convinced that what they believe is the truth.

Fear will continue to be a big part of life in the future, as it always has been, and those with power will use fear for control. So much we know. Our worst enemy is still us.