The Unabomber had semi-correct problem identification, but completely worthless prescription like else anyone unable to separate reality from fiction basing their ideas on a Hollywood revenge movie or becoming a crazy terrorist with a cause that maybe valid seeing themselves as "good guy freedom-fighters" but alienates and harms many. People might've been interested in helping to counteract the effects or sources of a problem if a change advocate approached them in a manner that was constructive, achievable, rational, and considerate. Instead, evil, lazy actions make the cause a pariah and its supporters enemies to most.

He had infinite options he failed to exercise, like getting involved in the humanities (sociology, philosophy, law) and/or community building to do the groundwork necessary to contribute positive change rather than illusionary shortcuts to fruitless impact, needless suffering, and self-destruction.

AGI is a canard. Too much money in electricity, servers, land, and technological advances would be needed to build and operate sufficiently capable digital reasoning. Domain-specific pseudo-intelligence task automation will continue here and there with LLMs, deep learning, and such, but no one is building just one "brain" for less than $5T and it probably wouldn't be very performant.

Current AI is totally incapable of replacing expert human judgment for almost everything because they lack constraints, predictability, and reliability. Also, most models hallucinate worthless, incorrect answers so often that they should be relegated to glorified creative, entertainment, and task-acceleration work for the foreseeable future and not be given wildly-inappropriate power like giving a toddler a nuke. Furthermore, the appeal to LLM authority fallacy is a dangerous trend of unthinking, laziness of people failing to think skeptically and find sources for themselves. Finally, too many laypeople and wild-eyed techbros are projecting and imagining AI capabilities that aren't really there and may never exist, but then making much bigger mistakes of irrational, risky bets on their preconceived conclusions, and telling us we should worship the billionaires, accept layoffs, accept panopticon surveillance, accept their loud, polluting data centers in our literal backyards.. for what good?

Its already replacing human experts. Watch the bond market self off currently happening in US. Driven by hordes of AI agents doing thousands of things faster than experts can blink. The experts at the Treasury tried to react at traditional human speed. Within a day the agentic horde detected the moves and counter reacted. Its like watching chimps throwing stones at a hurricane. The chimp troupe is quite unconcious about the randomness and surprises ahead.

> o fruitless impact,

His impact has not been fruitless, to the contrary and case in point, we're now discussing about him in here and in other similar places. Had he chosen the lame road of becoming a humanities thingie nothing of his legacy would have remained.

> People might've been interested in helping to counteract the effects or sources of a problem if a change advocate approached them in a manner that was constructive, achievable, rational, and considerate.

I mean this is just obviously and flagrantly untrue, eg. Greta Thunberg became a culture war boogeyman for half of the political spectrum over significantly more moderate views expressed in exactly the way you describe. If anything, acting like a bitch just emboldens the type who cause problems to cause more problems when they see these signs of weakness and zero will to resist them, as we see happening with acts of complete irrationality like Trump making a war against fucking wind turbines a top priority of the US government's agenda.

When you tell people they're protesting the wrong way, you're really just saying "I don't want to hear your complaints. Make them in a way that doesn't bother me so I can ignore them".