The Ebola virus can't do those things. So you're not scared of it, right?

Just because it's not like a human, that doesn't mean it can't kill you.

All of those claims about what AI research is and isn't are wrong.

Even if they were true, they would only represent the present, not the future. People were so sure the Wright brothers couldn't fly ...

The people polled have a financial interest in AI being thought to be safe. And despite that, many of them are scared.

I'm scared, too.

The most plausible reason for the inventor to remain anonymous: it's a Ponzi scheme.

You can only get prosecuted for that if you can be identified.

Wow, that solution is completely non-obvious, and isn't simply a restatement of the problem! What an incredibly valid patent!

I'd have been fine with it if Steam had kept just 15% of the money, and Bethesda none (they already get money selling the game).

Who cares if you don't consider Skynet to be "intelligent"? You're dead either way.

Humanity has never faced superhuman intelligence before. It is a problem fundamentally unlike all other problems. We cannot adapt and overcome, because it will adapt to us faster than we will adapt to it.

No, that's when Emacs WON that argument. Emacs is what you want, no matter what you want or how often you change your mind.

Vi is only what you want if you want vi.

Godwin's Law didn't stop being true. I see it all the time.

What do you mean "you should be able to explain"?

That's absurd. If you're talking to somebody who shares NONE of your cultural values, you can never convince them of anything. You have to start your argument from some point of agreement.

Hitler is used because he is the ONLY universally shared cultural value.

Godwin's Law is true, but apparently even Godwin doesn't understand why.

People inevitably make Hitler comparisons because it's the only moral bedrock we have left. There is no other issue upon which we can all be expected to agree.

Here's how Internet discussions work:

I say "X is bad". Somebody disagrees, so I say "X is bad because Y is bad". Somebody says "but Y isn't bad", so I have to say "Y is bad because Z is bad". Given the vast diversity of the Internet, there's going to be somebody who says "but Z isn't bad". To make my argument I have to find some basic moral bedrock, a thing that is so bad that we can ALL agree it's bad. Hitler is the ONLY thing that fits that description, so eventually every discussion will get there. That's why Godwin's Law is true.

Godwin's Law is about the fact that humans don't agree about morality. No more, no less.

"since the law came into effect"

Oh, please. It's not a law in the prescriptive sense, it's a law in the descriptive sense. It's like the law of gravity, not the law against murder.

Will it finally be able to figure out the aspect ratio of the source material?