Here you can have the last word since you apparently need it so bad for “just” saying something:

Nah, it was this instead:

“I was just saying they didn’t need to include some text, repeatedly, 28 times while saying people are traitors. But then I’m gonna try to say I wasn’t actually doing that even though I did it repeatedly, because obviously everyone else was just too stupid to understand my absolutely useless observation that I felt I needed to defend repeatedly because obviously everyone is too dumb to understand my incredible observatory powers, and people couldn’t possibly be disagreeing because I look like an idiot repeatedly trolling about people being traitors.”

Did you really think everyone was disagreeing that it wasn’t necessary? You really are something, fun times watching it though, but hey, you should definitely repeat that silly observation one more time.

“They included a provision to certify again that they agree with common sense, how unnecessary!” No kidding dumb-dumb… that’s why they do it…so people voting against it can be labeled traitors to humanity…like you’ve been doing…

Does it really need to be spelled out so plainly how useless your observation is and the net effect of your incessant replying to people who disagree with the person you decided to defend with your “observation”? Nevermind, apparently it does since your 6 defensive comments deep “just” making an observation.

No one, at all, at any point “supported” uncontrollable super-intelligence. They questioned your idiotic reasoning of how not believing in your ASSumed outcome makes them traitorous. Which you’ve still failed to be capable of recognizing, thus making it all the more humorous to read.

Yeah bud, you definitely aren’t saying the outcome is automatic. Or maybe you are, and the low IQ take is in not recognizing it?

In fairness, I personally believe anyone who thinks that uncontrolled super-intelligence will be the automatic outcome is an absolute idiot likely to have a below-average IQ, but that probably leaves me and most people on equal footing with you in the “no one actually cares what your opinion is” race.

Apparently, some people lack the technical understanding that an AI, by itself, literally can’t do anything at all and that it is the tools and harnessing provided to an AI that allows it to perform any type of action. Given this is such basic and fundamental knowledge to anyone who even attempts to understand how they work, I can only assume they are incapable of understanding. I would love to hear the intelligent basis for your ideas on how disagreeing with stupidity makes them a traitor.

I’ve started calling this “AI Bipolar”, and I find it fascinating. It seems like people are offended that they were “duped” into enjoying AI generated content, but will continue on to the next lower-quality human-made content with all sorts of issues that they will completely forgive solely out of comfort that it is a human doing it.

Why? We already have plenty of materials that can, are close, or have potential pathways for functional substitutes depending on the application? We are already pretty reliably able to print metal with machines no bigger than a fridge.

What happens when a curable resin or impregnated plastic can sufficiently replace steel/aluminum/copper for functions? Why would a steel foundry be needed for the desktop then? There are more theoretical materials that haven’t been discovered than there are atoms in the universe or something crazy like that, so it isn’t beyond the realm of possibility or even likelihood. Especially if AI helps accelerate that discovery, as it seems to be doing already according to a recent Faraday talk in a Royal Institution video — "How AI is Reinventing the Battery".

It also used to be that you needed a large machine to make a plastic part…now I print some in 20 minutes with something that sits on my desk. If one thing is true, it’s that materials and technology constantly change and (generally) improve.

Colloquialisms don’t establish importance, just popularity.

I expect one day having small lower power demand drive sized devices with proprietary burned-in models that are quite fast running on-device in robotics and such. Commoditizing LLMs via burned and locked hardware seems likely when LLMs have stabilized (when we reach a year between releases again) and the hardware is capable and “disposable” enough. “Buy a robot and upgrade it forever* (5 years) with newer models (sold separately)”, at least until the planned hardware obsolescence that the “interface has changed to support newer hardware, so you’ll need to upgrade (again) to use the latest features”.

The plans basically write themselves.

How many of X/Amazon/Google/Anthropic/OpenAI data centers have been blocked? I’m going to bet that number is close to zero for any important projects they were planning, likely because they were approved before the real regulation pushes started.

Both sides are getting played with the same song that ends in AI regulations, which is bad for people and good for profits.

It’s all strategy and theater so people can find alternative cause to latch onto that can be steered so it doesn’t really hurt the big players but will ultimately lead to more regulations (and thus more profits).

It often has less to do with the content, and more to do with personal preferences. As one person told me, “Why do I care? I still thought it was funny.”

The difference is those types of communities tend to share similarly strong personal preferences about AI. It’s a bit like saying, “I joined a math community but no one wanted to talk about my diet and workout routines.”