Insulting people doesn't help convince them.

Be careful. It has not been absolutely proven that vaccines never cause XXX. It probably can't be. It's just that there is no valid evidence that vaccines do cause autism. (At least that I know of.)

The original claim was a deliberate fraud, but many people believed it, and their part in it was not a "deliberate fraud", at least not on their part. But they *did* believe it because they wanted to, in the face of contrary evidence.

China has a history of not caring about people outside it's borders. This long predates the CCP.

It depends on the precise definition. But teleportation of sizeable objects is probably impossible. In the use of the term in quantum experiments it means something like "moving the state of one particle to the state of another without determining what the state is that you moved". And it's "moved" rather than communicating because the residual state has been changed. I.e., for a macroscopic analogy, if I "communicate" something to you, it doesn't make me forget it, but if I teleport (say a book) to you, I no longer have it.

Yeah, the word was chosen because it sounded catchy, but it *does* describe a legitimate effect that has no macroscopic counterpart.

I rather suspect that it means "valid under the WIPO" treaty.

To be fair, there are lots of negatives about the Chinese approach. And we're so used to the negatives of the US approach that we almost don't see them...but other people do.

As "dominant world power"s go, the US has been quite lenient. This is known as damning with faint praise. OTOH, China shows every sign of being going to be worse...but probably not worse than Britain was.

I think your model is only one of several alternatives. I don't foresee a unitary intelligence as likely, but an executive function delegating different tasks to different experts depending on context. And it can't be limited to language, it needs to interact more directly with the physical world. But we're already taking steps in that direction.

Yes, it's difficult. Perhaps it will take awhile. But there's absolutely no reason to expect human intelligence to remain the top measure. (Even now there are lots of contexts where it isn't. Try to out-calculate a spreadsheet. What the spreadsheet can't do is design itself.)

Good points, but not necessarily eternal truths. I suspect you could use magnetic fields to strengthen the cable. Of course, that would collapse if the power failed. But perhaps there are other alternatives that nobody has thought of.

Still, my favorite skyhook is the PinWheel, though it needs a hefty mass in a fairly low orbit (as well as long arms that reach into the stratosphere). But you need to lower as much mass as you raise (on the average) or the orbit decays.

Looks like you're implementing LISP.

What I wonder is whether it's any good. Admittedly, I don't wonder hard enough to listen to it, but then I generally (almost always) avoid podcasts.

There will be tools. But there will also be the more general intelligence. One can argue about the time-line, and that's quite reasonable, but denying it requires accepting spiritualism or some such.

For that matter, people are often used as tools. It's not an "either/or" choice.

The only way you could reasonably predict what jobs will be available would be to predict exactly how much more advanced AIs are going to get and how quicly. And any prediction is a "Wild Ass Guess".

FWIW, there's a company in China building humanoid robots for assembly line work. So far it's only sold less than a thousand, so it's probably still in the experimental stage, but if it's "nearly ready" then it will soon be ready.

Now most assembly line work is basically rote repetition, with only a limited number of special-case scenarios, to this is far from a general purpose robot...but it's enough to eliminate LOTS of jobs...if it's cheap enough. And if it is, one can expect incremental expansion into other roles.

It's not going to be an LLM. The LLM is just what it's going to use to talk to you. But "world models" are being built, and that is going to be the basis of real intelligence.

The thing is, it wouldn't help things for one player to quit.

OTOH, as someone else pointed out, the government isn't exactly trustworthy either. (I consider accepting funds from lobbyist groups to be accepting bribes, just like accepting funds from individuals.)

On the third hand, open source approaches can't limit the use to which something is put.

Perhaps the "corporate powers" are the least bad choice...but that sure isn't encouraging.