So weird to see a piece ostensibly about logical fallacies deploy one so cavalierly: > I offered to bet [Elon Musk] $100,000 he was wrong [about AGI by 2029] [

So weird to see a piece ostensibly about logical fallacies deploy one so cavalierly: > I offered to bet [Elon Musk] $100,000 he was wrong [about AGI by 2029] [...] Musk didn’t have the guts to accept, which tells you a lot. The fact that you couldn't get someone engaged in a conversation absolutely does not "tell you a lot" about the substance of your argument. It only tells you that you were ignored. Now, I happen to think Marcus is right here and Musk is wrong, but... yikes. That was just a jarring bit of writing. Either do the detached professorial admonition schtick or take off the gloves and engage in bad faith advocacy and personal attacks. Both can be fun and get you eyeballs, and substack is filled with both. But not at the same time!