Not only does Section 230 of the CDA have nothing to do with this case and vice versa, but it hasn't erradicated [sic] corporate responsibility. That's what corporations are for.

But how will they do the red scare when they've already done better Russian than Democrat?

And probably with milk, which has its own sugar.

All we know is that sugar isn't the only problem.

Without studying what they're actually eating we don't know if they're replacing it with some other processed carbohydrate, from which sugar differs little from a dietary standpoint.

Charging efficiency varies with rate, but you are ostensibly also only charging as much as necessary to get the vehicle to the next charging point.

It probably isn't legal somewhere, but in general not much is lost because you can easily get free replacements so it's difficult to argue substantial damages.

Weirdly, most of the work in the world is still performed by people

-- AC, 2024, responding to the idea that automation will take over

Weirdly, most of the transport in the world is still performed by horses

-- Buggy whip manufacturers, 1886, responding to the idea that the IC vehicle will take over

Very simple: Currently known Physics mandates that everything large-scale goes down to just 4 fundamental forces and everything small-scale goes down to quantum-effects. Neither of the two can form consciousness as currently understood.

So far, without exception, that's been an indication of a lack of understanding. Not an indication of impossibility. There are lots of things we don't understand, or fully understand. And many more that we didn't understand, but now understand. That doesn't imply current knowledge gaps must be filled with instances of unknown physics. Particularly as every time we have gained an understanding of something, is has 100% turned out to be depending upon no more than the same physics everything else leverages, or a deeper understanding of same. That's clearly the way to bet; it's not an equal balance between physics and magic.

I argue the question [of non-physics brainops] is open.

Well, it's open in the same way that the question of practical commercial fusion is open. It's an unsolved problem, but the physics appear to be the same physics everything else has turned out to depend upon. Everything we know of, literally everything, works "because physics." You did say "known physics" — which is an interesting hedge — however we've observed no processes in the brain that perform in ways that imply unknown physics, nor have we found any material structures in the brain that cannot be explained by known physics, so there's that.

There is a pretty large gap between "we haven't figured out how this very complex system works" versus "must be magic", and the assumptions on the opposite sides of that gap are not worthy of equal weight.

That is why...

At this time, Physicalism is just as much belief as the opposite.

...is an unjustifiable position at this time. The evidence — all of it, and there's plenty — is that the brain is a system operating within the bounds of physics. Not only that, but within the bounds of known physics.

It's my belief that the basic technologies of the LLMs are sufficient [for AGI]

Well, if you're going with "AGI is a really good LLM", okay, perhaps.

But if you're using AGI to describe a conscious intelligence (you know, what "AI" meant before the marketers starting calling thermostats intelligent), i.e. a synthetic person, no, almost certainly not. LLMs produce streams of words according to probabilities developed from their training data and guided by the input query or queries. This is why some of the word streams, while grammatically coherent, are factually nonsensical: this is misprediction (somewhat risibly called "hallucination" by the marketing types. Protip: it's not hallucination.) Putting words together according to probability is not reasoning. LLMs don't think.

Having said that, an LLM might end up being part of an AGI (and yes, I do mean a synthetic person) but the role is almost certain to be limited to assembling output from a system that actually puts information together in such a way as to actually understand it before trying to assemble a bunch of words that communicates that understanding to others. Understanding the information is not a technology anyone has demonstrated to date.

LLMs, due to their ability to assemble grammatically coherent word streams based on their training data probabilities and the input quer(y/ies), are outright subversive in their simulation of intelligence. We all love a nicely constructed sentence and series of sentences. But there's no "there" there.

there is no known tech that could even remotely get that brain simulation into the same volume

Sure there is. It's called "biology." Nature has created brains / complex nervous systems over and over again, in quite a few different ways. We might end up doing so as well. Genetic understandings are developing and likely have a long way to go before we reach any limits (or implementations, but still, the tech potential is obvious.)

However, it's worth noting that there's no actual requirement for "getting [a brain] into the same volume." There's not even a requirement for having it cohabit the volume where its manipulators and sensors interact with the world as a robotic manifestation. We carry ours around, but current technology has already made that optional for robotics. RF is very handy for remote operations. A nice plus for this approach is if the body is damaged or destroyed, you just replace it and you still have the same entity.

Check your units, friend. I went so far as to make the conversion for you.

I wasn't sold until I read this line.

Even if nobody had to earn their money, we could still use it as a means of ensuring that wealth was fairly distributed. Or, you know, the opposite of course.

I think his argument is that we don't know why the human mind exists, because we haven't fully explained how the brain works (in part because we haven't fully explained how physics works, but also for lots of other reasons like having an incomplete picture of even what the mechanisms in the brain are, let alone what the physics of them is) and until we do then we should keep our minds open to possibilities.

But on the other hand, you can go any distance down that rabbit hole and only the parts where we don't understand enough about the function of the brain or exactly what is consciousness are the parts worth arguing about in this context because they are sufficient. There's a lot we don't understand about how the brain works physically, and there's also a lot we don't have well defined about what it's even doing. We're not really prepared to decide what is or isn't intelligent.