AI code is competent, but it's not great or high quality unless you have a good enough eye for quality to steer it with an iron hand. But if you do, you know the quality comes from proper guidance, so you still wouldn't say AI code is great. If you do say exactly that, it comes across as having low standards (which is fine if you own it) and people are going to jump on that just to bring you down a peg.

I don't know about that. The Gemini TUI takes like four full seconds to start on my machine. I have no idea what the hell it's doing. A lot of the fancy new TUIs that are coming on the crest of the current fad are hot garbage. I hate them.

Considering AC could persist indefinitely in hyperspace while interacting with normal matter, the answer would appear to be "hyperspace", whatever that is.

"Bruxelles" is the official French spelling, and French is the city's most spoken language, so maybe they just, you know, live there.

That's basically my main argument for replacing election-based democracy by lottery-based democracy. Electing the right representatives is a coordination problem in and of itself, a process which the wealthy are already quite adept at manipulating, so we might as well cut the middle man and pick a random representative sample of the population instead, who can then coordinate properly.

It's like, if you want to sell your cyanide penis pills under big government, you need to bribe someone. If you want to sell them under small government, you just... you just sell them, that's what.

There may be ways to design a government where power is better distributed, e.g. using sortition, but ultimately it needs to be richer and more powerful than its wealthiest citizens, otherwise these wealthy citizens will assess, correctly, that when push comes to shove, the laws won't apply to them, and they do not need the government's permission to do what they want.

The whole terminology around these things is hopelessly confused.

I don't think there's anything you can't do by "predicting the next token really well". It's an extremely powerful and extremely general mechanism. Saying there must be "something beyond that" is a bit like saying physical atoms can't be enough to implement thought and there must be something beyond the physical. It underestimates the nearly unlimited power of the paradigm.

Besides, what is the human brain if not a machine that generates "tokens" that the body propagates through nerves to produce physical actions? What else than a sequence of these tokens would a machine have to produce in response to its environment and memory?

Sure, you can put it this way, with the caveat that reality at large isn't strongly definable.

You can sort of see this with good engineering: half of it is strongly defining a system simple enough to be reasoned about and built up, the other half is making damn sure that the rest of reality can't intrude, violate your assumptions and ruin it all.

Netflix is a good example: the functionality isn't difficult to reproduce, and the only thing that restricts its library is copyright, which the EU could just stop enforcing for American companies.

This may not apply to you if you regard LLMs, including their established rhetorical patterns, with greater suspicion or scrutiny (and you should!) It also does not apply when talking about subjects in which you are knowledgeable. But if you're chatting about things you are not knowledgeable about, and you treat the LLM just like any human, I think it applies. There's a reason LLM psychosis is a thing, rhetorically these things can simulate the ability of a cult leader.

So the question is, at which point would the aggregate production of enough energy to cause climate change through waste heat be economically feasible? I see no reason to think this would come after becoming "immortal post-humans." The current climate change crisis is just one example of a scale-induced threat that is happening prior to post-humanity. What makes it so special or unique? I suspect there's many others down the line, it's just very difficult to understand the ramifications of scaling technology before they unfold.

And that's the crux of the issue isn't it? It's extremely difficult to predict what will happen once you deploy a technology at scale. There are countless examples of unintended consequences. If we keep going forward at maximal speed every time we make something new, we'll keep running headfirst into these unintended consequences. That's basically a gambling addiction. Mostly it's going to be fine, but...

This being said, I think that the alternatives are wishful thinking. Better efficiency is often counterproductive, as reducing the energy cost of something by, say, half, can lead to its use being more than doubled. It only helps to increase the efficiency of things for which there is no latent demand, basically.

And renewables and nuclear are certainly nicer than coal, but every energy source can lead to massive problems if it is overexploited. For instance, unfettered production of fusion energy would eventually create enough waste heat to cause climate change directly. Overexploitation of renewables such as solar would also cause climate change by redirecting the energy that heats the planet. These may seem like ridiculous concerns, but you have to look at the pattern here. There is no upper bound whatsoever to the energy we would consume if it was free. If energy is cheap enough, we will overexploit, and ludicrous things will happen as a result.

Again, I actually agree with you that advocating for degrowth is hopeless. But I don't think alternative ways forward such as what you propose will actually work.