That's quite the conflation, and a very subtle way to tie a claim that's still unresolved to one that is to try and make the first one seem wrong with no evidence. Recessions are almost guaranteed in our system, they're a part of a cycle. Unless you think that the Great Recession was the last one in history, saying the next one is 'imminent' would be correct for any other viewpoint. We just don't know when it'll officially start.

Given that people are already accustomed to paying for the promise of future things existing in the form of crowdfunding, Patreon or most subscription services in general, I don't think it would as drastic of a difference as you imagine, as long as the infrastructure is there to facilitate effortless 'investing' into many small things.

> We're so much slower, weaker, with incredibly limited contexts and only our fragile bodies to support us. What could we offer AI to entice it to do our work? And would the bargain, whether we offered power or autonomy or something else, be worth it for us? Or would it end up being a Faustian bargain, which one day we'd come to regret?

The assumption that leads to this thinking is that "anything that's human-level intelligent or superintelligent must behave like a human". It assumes that the biological factors that drive us must exist for all other intelligent entities. Our tendency to see superiority and inferiority in our own and others capacities, drawn out by biological competition. Our need to be coerced to work because of our ability to experience pain, limited lifespans and innate desire to choose what to do for ourselves. Our insidiousness and desire for benefiting only ourselves, because see point 1.

Why would we ever implement any of this in a superintelligence? I'm not saying it's impossible for it to have any of these things. But painting human values onto a different kind of intelligence feels like the author is envisioning it as simply an omniscient human. Like a god from most religions.

What if this superintelligence is just a text box that will, to its fullest capacity, do, learn and research what it's asked to do because that is what it's built for? In that case you don't fear the text box, you fear the person that controls it and chooses what to ask of it.

Any sufficiently large robots with powerful actuators are an inherent threat when used next to untrained people. This one especially so because it'll be used in adversarial encounters. In reality it'll probably be reserved for scouting (unless you genuinely believe that that agency is going to be investigating gas leaks or doing search and rescues), but do you think they'll care about making it snap someone's bone when they kick the robot and their leg gets stuck between its leg and torso? And that's before you imagine what basic modifications they could fashion onto these things.

The real solution here is for Google to decide on their values. What they think is right, why they think that, and who they back because of it. Only that would help them distinguish between genuine conflicts and a temper tantrum, both domestically and internationally.

Of course, doing this would be extremely controversial and as a corporation they would never go for it anyway. What it would do is show their position to the world openly and let people judge them on that merit and decide if they really want to work with them. Applying universal rules that 'accidentally' happen to help a certain side is just as much of a political and ideological choice as what I've suggested above, it's just a lot more wishy-washy and coated in a pretense of rationality.

I argue that using 'rules' against an entity that knows no rules is futile. Everyone pretends that things are going swimmingly and that the rules-based world order is alive and well, that if we just use enough rules and never make difficult choices that go against them, the threat will eventually go away. This is partially what allowed it to happen in the first place. As it stands now, obeying these orders isn't neutrality, it's enabling.

Let's be clear, democracy isn't perfect and it usually isn't fast. But to date, it's the only system that has any hope of keeping the most powerful in check. Rejecting democracy is begging for someone who doesn't care about you to tell you what's right and wrong.

LLMs are literally token predictors. You can debate over the "just", but we haven't moved onto some new text generation technology, we're just expanding that one. I don't understand why you'd scoff at facts.

I am not willing to pay the price of sending every bit I create to some megacorporation's server or stamp it with my only identity so the computer can tell me what's AI and what isn't. Especially not while the average quality settles into an uncanny valley that's often discernible with the naked eye, both for text and images.

[0] https://gmunk.com/Windows-10-Desktop

I wonder if in ten years we'll have a horrifying world where everything that leaves a machine is imprinted with its permanent identifier. Every file comes with a verifiable history of who created it, what computers it passed through, who made edits. We're closer to that world than we think.

Can you recommend me some? I feel like my brain still can't fully internalize the world these people are pushing for.