I have just invented a radical new form of free speech, I’ll call it pure free speech.

In pure free speech, you’re free to say anything to anyone without having any consequences whatsoever.

This is achieved by everyone agreeing to not respond to speech in any way.

Someone shouts fire in a cinema? that’s fine, it’s their choice, nobody listen.

Somebody asked you for the time? That’s fine, it’s their choice, don’t respond in any way.

Whilst I don’t really disagree with the other answers, I think it’s unfair for nobody to give the pro-singularity argument, so here it is.

We have reason to think that humans are a minimum viable general intelligence, like we evolved just enough to cross that rubicon, then evolution stopped mattering much because we started developing faster than it could keep up, and the difference between first proper intelligence and us is basically minor fiddling from an evolutionary perspective.

meanwhile our brains are a complicated mess that we barely understand and can’t improve upon. Or at least we’re not smart enough to improve it atm.

An agi will probably have a much more iterable brain (if nothing else they’ll be able to change some settings and see what happens, which we can’t really do either ethically or quickly.

Finally, it doesn’t really make sense to talk about an agi of human intelligence, because our intelligence is defined by some rather ridiculous limitations that no agi will ever have, so the first “human level” agi will be vastly better than us at some things (hell, even before LLMs computers were superhuman at lots of stuff).

Combine all that together, and you can imagine a scenario where the first proper agi is also so much better at designing agi than we are that it very quickly rebuilds itself into something even more beyond us. End result is it surpasses us faster than we can react, I think the name is meant to evoke the concept that there’s no way to see past the event horizon, once we’ve built it everything is different in ways we cannot predict.

As I said, I don’t actually think this is likely, but you deserved a nuanced answer not just everyone joking about it.

And ofc it still makes sense if you take the “jungle” to be a metaphor for nature in general with its complex webs of interaction and predation.

You sir are making no sense whatsoever. JFK could not have fit all those panties in his hat.

Also everyone knows he assassinated himself, So he knew exactly when it was going to happen

The EFF… loves censorship?

You can complain they aren’t doing enough I guess, but you might as well say a pet shelter loves murdering puppies because they can’t save them all or a environmentalist loves emitting co2 because they support an economically viable plan for net zero.

Or more often now, Y/Pay

Who says it didn’t, perhaps all they needed was objective proof that they’re worthy, and the genie has now provided it.

The greatest wizards don’t even need magic.

They can probably use heuristics to keep the 0.1% most interesting traffic (eg traffic that flows towards servers that isn’t too large, that’d catch everything you send to your bank without breaking the budget to store)

By your definition Picasso “watermarked” his paintings, and so does every artist.

Signing your work has been tradition for centuries, if not longer, and is a right earned by the author of any work. The fact that online content uses links instead of signatures is a reasonable modernisation of an ancient right.

Do you rage when the credits roll on a movie? When the artist’s name is written on an album? When people call it “ Michelangelo’s David”?

Yeah, the cat isn’t a legal piece, well spotted

Nobody said the wolf was good, he’s just announced that violence can be used to claim property. That’s not exactly a good solution to wealth distribution, at best it’s a reset button, at worst it’s the path to authoritarianism.

The theory is that profit seeking is “good” capitalism, where you make money by increasing overall productivity and skimming the extra off the top, but rent seeking is “bad” profiteering where you use your leverage to manipulate the situation so you can derive income without increasing productivity.

So building a factory on your land is capitalism, but leaving the hovels untouched and charging high rent because your tenants have nowhere else to go is rent-seeking.

In practise of course lots of rent seeking behaviour is done by people who claim to be capitalists, so it’s at least a good way to argue with them on their own terms

Yeah, I’m a big fan of pulling out the concept of “rent seeking” as an ultimate evil and threat to capitalism, because you can explain why all the late stage capitalist horrors are actually anti-capitalist and get capitalists on side. Sometimes you don’t have to tear someone’s world view apart to get them to support making the world better