catigula

21 ms·

421.
by catigula 1y ago
This is not merely my opinion, but that of knowledgable AI researchers, many of whom place ASI at not a simple remote possibility, but something they see as almost inevitable given our current understanding of the science. I don't see
422.
by catigula 1y ago
Slowing AI development by even one month is essentially infinite slowness in terms of superintelligence development. It's a kill-shot, a massive policy success. Lost months are lost exponentially and it becomes impossible to catch up.
423.
by catigula 1y ago
AI seems to explain this better than as framed: >...the body of the article doesn’t describe a panel of physicians making predictions at all. The headline says “AI fares better than doctors,” but the text says the model outperformed “ris
424.
by catigula 1y ago
I can understand reticence to basing conclusions about people's health on minimal evidence.
425.
by catigula 1y ago
Quantum computing research feels like one of those things whose greatest effort would likely be classified research. In fact, you could argue the article in the OP looks like well-poisoning based on the author's conclusions.
426.
by catigula 1y ago
This is the genetic forebear of what we have today, a congenially disguised infection of the essence that has set man against man. People who vehemently disagree are supposed to and should have open dialogue, not elaborate letters of viscer
427.
by catigula 1y ago
This notion that Koreans are the victims of racial grievance politics isn't supported in the data.
428.
by catigula 1y ago
What experimental data supported the safety conclusion?
429.
by catigula 1y ago
"Science-loving" people would be furious at this comment even though it's clearly just speculative and humorous.
430.
by catigula 1y ago
So it's safe because of a strawman you set up and knocked down without experimental data?
431.
by catigula 1y ago
>On a side note Lard Hadron Collider is safe from micro black holes due to Hawking radiation It's something that isn't well studied, hasn't been observed extensively and potentially destructive. People always hand-wave des
432.
by catigula 1y ago
If the government requires the ability to arbitrarily spy on anyone at will to exist (which they have, the encryption thing is mostly retrospective and unwillingness to use/reveal the bigger guns in large public cases), we are probably
433.
by catigula 1y ago
Yes, there is medicine for negative thinking that helps to various degrees (SSRIs do work), but they have issues and unfortunately we don't have any magic bullets.
434.
by catigula 1y ago
This crime has yet to be addressed.
435.
by catigula 1y ago
I mean very simply: a highly secretive project that explores new physics for some radical new, destructive technology. It's interesting that everyone here is talking about mundane technologies or technologies that stem from a project t
436.
by catigula 1y ago
1. It is trivial to "falsify" unexplained UAP. Simply provide a credible explanation, or say they're explained. In fact, president Obama did the opposite, and confirmed that they aren't explained or explicable. Our gover
437.
by catigula 1y ago
Question: are there any other known "Manhattan projects" and if not, why not?
438.
by catigula 1y ago
Aside from the deliberate obtusity it bears emphasizing that you aren't in the trenches of Ukraine.
439.
by catigula 1y ago
I'm trying to soft-land you on this but this is specifically because you don't know and haven't been curious about it, not because there isn't any evidence. Nobody denies David Grusch is exactly who he says he is with th
440.
by catigula 1y ago
America feels like it's in mortal danger.
441.
by catigula 1y ago
The information you claim to want isn't accessible to you. The US government has "platforms" with vast arrays of sensors and data collection capability - redundant, multiplicative platforms measuring things you and I might no
442.
by catigula 1y ago
Curious that you immediately descend into partisan thought short-circuiting and now that that didn't work, you come up with a new angle.
443.
by catigula 1y ago
I'm going to address your hypothesis of "unknown technologies". It's something that widely seems credible but really isn't. These phenomena have been documented, in-depth, for many, many decades. Credible sources no
444.
by catigula 1y ago
>I am not aware of any mysteries that are most simply explained by a hitherto unobserved, technologically advanced (I assume we're not talking about dolphins when we say) "non-human intelligence" This is precisely the poin
445.
by catigula 1y ago
Nobody definitively says it's extra-terrestrial. In fact, the common thread seems to be that the entities are from Earth or from a dimensional space where that concept is potentially invalid. Other people speculate that they may come f
446.
by catigula 1y ago
No, that isn't possible. Note that my post was designed to be agnostic. Leaking a psy-op, or leaking the extensive, close-up details of UAP phenomena which we do have (president Obama himself said there are confirmed unknown phenomena,
447.
by catigula 1y ago
You've immunized yourself from any possibility of entertaining this information. Many people sharing it aren't republicans, including senators.
448.
by catigula 1y ago
Non-human intelligence sharing the planet with us is a mundane explanation. It's a completely trivial possibility in the vastly expansive fields of biology and physics. Earth is known to host extremely complex life and is the only know
449.
by catigula 1y ago
Credible non-politicians, people in sensitive CIA or senior military leadership have consistently made these claims. They may all be liars, but none seem particularly stupid. One problem is that we haven't gotten a "UAP Snowden&qu
450.
by catigula 1y ago
No, I'm just asserting that I don't find that theory tenable. I'd love to know more (even your mundane explanation of "there's a psy-op on congresspeople for some reason" - if so, why?) but it's been decid

More ›