Your 'serious' proposal is unlimited global military bombing campaign on civilian infrastructure by the United States (which is currently losing a war using the same strategy) to 'solve safety' preemptively against a 20% number you just made up?

And you accuse the 'other side' of 'suicidal apathy'??

You should put down the AI and do some self-reflection on how you came to hold these views.

▲

armchairhacker 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

GP said cooperation, never implied the US would do it alone.

▲

deaton 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If the thesis that "If anybody builds it, everyone dies" is true, or has any chance of becoming true, then it is the logical thing to do. As Geoffrey Hinton said, "If you want to know what it's like not to be the apex intelligence, ask a chicken."

▲

lkey 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It is not 'logical' to imagine a hypothetical doomsday scenario that justifies a preemptive nuclear war. (which is what the grandparent commenter's bio contemplates, 'nuke the datacenters' is their central credo).

Does it bother you that the people who are publicly cocksure that P(doom) is moments away are the same people that have profited most handsomely from that pronouncement?

That the 'humanists' that want to do 'altruism' for 'potential future humans' and are the same people that commit fraud and theft at a civilizational scale, then sell this 'intelligence' to any child-incinerating militaries with spare cash?

It's not wrong to want to do good, but if a system that is branded 'do (the most) good' commits great evils, you are morally and intellectually obligated to step back and reconsider how you are spending your time.

Also, I asked a chicken and a feral rock dove what it's like to be not be 'apex' and they burbled at me and kept eating millet and sunflower seeds.

Would you like me to follow up with them? I'm not sure what point you expected them to make.

▲

cubefox 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> It is not 'logical' to imagine a hypothetical doomsday scenario that justifies a preemptive nuclear war

You hallucinated the "preemptive nuclear war". He didn't say anything about nukes. That's your own invention.

> Does it bother you that the people who are publicly cocksure that P(doom) is moments away

20% is not "cocksure". The "moments" is again an exaggeration.

	▲	lkey an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I did not, I read kypro's (the OP I was replying to) bio, to whit: Every problem is a search problem. Nuke the data centers. P(doom) = 98.9% (Aug-2026) P(doom) = 98.2% (July-2026) P(doom) = 98.2% (Jun-2026) P(doom) = 98.5% (May-2026) P(doom) = 98.8% (mid-April-2026) P(doom) = 98.7% (April-2026) P(doom) = 98.7% (March-2026) P(doom) = 98.5% (mid-Feb-2026) P(doom) = 97% (Feb-2026) P(doom) = 94% (Jan-2026) P(doom) = 93% (Dec-2025) P(doom) = 95% (July-2025)

▲

samatman an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

If the Judeo-Bolshevist theses were true, then Operation Barbarossa was the logical thing to do, and everything which came with it.

Powerful word, `if`. "You're not only wrong you're a fulminating psychopath" is a perfectly valid response to getting it wrong like a fulminating psychopath.