Man, I'd love to be that blissfully ignorant and naive.

You know, there just might be ways to structure our society so that businesses can be profitable without destroying the whole planet. But I guess that's commie talk.

Holy idiotic assumption from hell batman. And a huge side helping of whatabboutism garnished with the biggest lump of straw man I've ever seen.

That's a SHITLOAD of stupid in one reply. I'm honestly impressed.

Also, MBA don't violently protest, but they absolutely DO lobby government to send in the military to do their bidding. Which as far as violence goes is worse than a riot.

Broken politics, a destroyed environment, debased social fabric, and a degenerate business culture prove his point.

Yes, the planet will eventually recover from our damage. That doesn't help us if that process takes a million years. We need working biosystems now, not in a million years.

Also, you're a fucking retard.

Why the fuck can't we root out this sort of ignorance? It's dumbasses like you voting for dumbass policies that has landed us here. You should not be allowed to vote.

lol. Every time someone points out that the USA is just as much of a repressive propagandist as China, some guy gets butthurt and jumps in with some highly specific thing that apparently makes it totally different.

In the USA, the state runs arguably an even bigger propaganda machine. The fact that it's privatised on paper doesn't mean it's not a tool used by the elites and less than is the case in China.

To be fair, given the state of things in the west today, it's hard to argue that end state capitalism is any better for the citizenry than end state communism. It just has better PR.

Did you guys ever actually believe that land of the free stuff? Wow.

And fair play too. The West doesn't subsidize it's companies to give them an advantage in foreign markets, it invades and bombs the shit out of the entire economy and then sells them "reconstruction services" on interest bearing loans.

So yea. Fuck anyone that whines about Chinese subsidies.

Agreed. I should have said "one system". I accept your correction.

He used that as one example of a whole set of problems. Sure, one model can drive a car, another model can do sexy chat, another can categorise photos of food.

But the post you're replying to, whose point you totally missed, is that AGIs definition is one single model that can do ALL tasks a human can do, as well as a human.

His opinion seemed clearly explained and well reasoned. As opposed to your comment...