Hadrian 

@_alice_evans What do you think will happen when these AI companions have a functional body similar to a human's?

AI companions may become ever more fun, engaging, sympathetic, supportive, alluring (and perhaps even sycophantic). They may outcompete real-world alternatives, especially for people who struggle with social skills. If unchecked, this may limit human friendships and empathy.

@anaprents Um livro do Karl Marx.

O que comprar para dar de presente para uma bilionária franco canadense que vai te receber no iate no mediterrâneo. Pesquisar.

@kevcuev I agree. Just like you didn't write that, since you used a smartphone. And I didn't write that either.

Si lo hiciste con IA, no lo hiciste tú. Parece una obviedad pero a mucha gente hay que recordárselo.

Detectar texto gerado por IA é a nova astrologia dos pedantes. Eles acusam até quem não usou de usar.

@drexalvarez Afeta justamente por ser algo incontrolável. É como apontar que você foi abençoado ou amaldiçoado pelo universo. Tem um peso metafísico aí. Kk

é muito doido como ser feio ou bonito, algo absolutamente independente de qualquer mérito próprio, é o julgamento que mais afeta a autoestima de uma pessoa, de longe.

@Kasparov63 That's not true. Something new emerges from the synthesis of past information. That's why LLMs have solved mathematical problems that were once unsolvable. The point is that they don't do this without a human prompt (or human will).

🎯 LLMs are very useful, but they are completely data-based and data is by definition only ever about the past. To write something new, you have to go beyond, and on your own.

@PhilosopherJoeC Consider the perfect circle as a cross section of reality, just as the silhouette of an eagle doesn't need to be that of a real eagle to scare a duck. The formula describes an ideal relationship (constant distance) that reality realizes imperfectly, but in an extremely close way.

@StrangerWasp What in the world does the formula for a circle refer to? Presuming there are no perfect circles in the world.

Is mathematics objective or subjective? Say why below if you can.

@izzynobre Não vai se arrepender. Há alguns anos comprei hds externos e tenho acumulado músicas, livros e filmes. Melhor coisa que fiz. Tudo o que gosto a um clique.

Comprei um mp3 player e vou cancelar Apple Music assim que chegar. 100% empolgado pra retornar ao mundo pré-streaming

@rationalaussie In the real world: there is not a single piece of evidence of an imminent AGI. It's truly in the realm of belief—messianic belief. And the tokens remain absurdly expensive.

Many people ask the question 'what field should I retrain into after AI takes my job'? The question makes no sense. If you believe in AGI, the AGI will do that job too. All the economists get this very basic proposition wrong. They will launch into all sorts of complex sounding arguments to make themselves sound smart but it's actually very simple: The increase in demand for existing/new jobs will be outweighed by the increase in supply of AGI capable of doing those jobs. Yeah, sure, some humans will do some percentage of those jobs. A very small percentage. And the rest will go to AGI. Because no rational economic actor is going to employ a human that is extraordinarily expensive, slow and bad at their job compared to an AGI. The exceptions to this argument are in professions where the human element of the job is what gives it a premium to the consumer who is paying. This is a sliver of all jobs. Not everyone is going to retrain as a retreat leader, therapist, entertainer, etc. It makes no sense. And besides, the people unemployed will not have enough money to spend on those industries to boost demand enough to create enough jobs in those sectors. Even if you somehow, magically, believe it will ('Jevon's Paradox') you still have to explain how that all happens within the timespan of a few years. It is totally illogical. I have been thinking deeply about AI for over a decade. I've read basically all the AI researchers views on this, and I've read the other side - the economists who think it's all rubbish, Jevon's Paradox, yada yada yada. Not a single one of these people can articulate a future where the majority of humans remain employed. And you might quip 'well yeah RA, no one can predict the future. The Industrial Revolution also changed jobs - more jobs were created.' It's a terribly dumb and lazy argument. The Industrial Revolution happened over decades. And it was still a revolution. We are talking about a compressed period of an intelligence explosion that is going to happen over the next 3 years. All knowledge workers become dumber, slower and more costly than just using capital to get an AGI to achieve your goal. And the incentives drive every single participant in the economy, on both the demand and supply side, to use AI. Consumers use it because it's better, faster, cheaper. Producers use it for the same reason - and because the increased in AI-generated demand forces them to supply an AI-generated solution just to keep up with the workload. Just stop and think about that for a moment. You are kidding yourself if you think a 4-5% unemployment rate is what that world looks like. In the limit, the number of humans employed post-AGI looks like the number of humans currently unemployed today. 95% unemployment. All your models are destroyed. The future looks nothing like the past.

@John_Attridge The problem with allusions is that nowadays idiots accuse you of plagiarism. 😂

I personally don't use citations. If you don't recognise the allusion, that's on you

@JimDMiller Most mathematicians didn't discover the subject matter they use. Mathematical discoveries broaden people's horizons of awareness, which translates into practical science.

Suppose AIs become superhuman at math within two years, as far beyond humans in math as they already are in chess. What practical breakthroughs might follow, perhaps room temperature superconductors?

@euromaximal So the conservative idiots ask themselves: why don't people want to have children?

The housing situation in Portugal is a travesty. Median net salary in Portugal is around 1200€. The average rent for a one bedroom apartment in Lisbon? Around 1300€ in 2026. Want to buy instead? It’s 400,000€. One salary literally isn’t enough for even the smallest house. Young people have no future. Entire generations are going to be plunged into poverty and homelessness. And what do the governments do? Nothing. They literally don’t care. Radical change is needed or something disastrous is going to happen.

@Romudeth How would you prove the theft?

I don't understand why there isn't a bigger push to sue these companies that use AI to steal others' work. It's the biggest IP theft in history, yet they get away with it. It's absolutely insane that they just get away with it.

@kimmonismus Okay, but what evidence does he present to support this prediction?

„We are only a few years away from AGI (…) we can start feeling it now. 2026,2027 is when it’s starting.“ Demis Hassabis has never been known for trying to generate hype. Hearing him say that we are on the path to AGI really excites me.

@davidasesorbm It's easy to say that when you're already rich and you stop disregarding the luck factor. How many like him have failed? He doesn't have that metric. That's confirmation bias.

El hombre más rico de China, Jack Ma, dijo: Si pones los plátanos y el dinero frente a los monos, los monos elegirán los plátanos, porque los monos no saben que el dinero puede comprar muchos plátanos. De hecho, si ofreces trabajo y negocio a las personas, elegirán trabajar, porque la mayoría de las personas no saben que un negocio puede generar más dinero que un salario. Una de las razones por las que los pobres son pobres es porque los pobres no están entrenados para reconocer la oportunidad emprendedora. Pasan mucho tiempo en la escuela y lo que aprenden en la escuela es trabajar por un salario en lugar de trabajar para sí mismos. La ganancia es mejor que los salarios porque los salarios pueden mantenerte, pero las ganancias pueden hacerte una fortuna. Si no aprendes a reconocer las oportunidades, seguirás eligiendo el camino seguro en lugar del rentable.

@wasatchgunn Money.

@zugzjuan96 O @nntaleb comprou essa briga. Agora os economistas o odeiam. 😂

Creo francamente que la economía podría ser una ciencia de verdad. Pero para ello habría que quitar a los economistas y poner a los físicos a hacer la ciencia económica.

@_nalup A solução seria populações menores com robôs na linha de produção. E talvez a única saida.

qual sera o futuro da humanidade visto que um dos nossos MAIORES problemas eh a superpopulacao e devemos parar de procriar mas ao mesmo tempo esse sistema necessita de mais pessoas nascendo continuamente

@jugbandblues0 Esse cara é pastor da igreja "bola de neve", é completamente louco. Kk