I like how even the "correct" response at the end has got this paragraph of absolute nonsense.

To minimize the number of trips, the robot should use a strategy that reduces the number of elevator rides. Since the elevator can carry the robot and up to 3 other items, the robot can take all 4 vegetables in one trip if it is allowed to carry all of them at once. However, if the robot can only carry 3 items in addition to itself, it would need to make at least two trips.

And I hate how even though I know perfectly well how it works I still asked myself what it was trying to say here. God I hate chatbots. I hate the mockery of meaning.

blaming your issues on a conspiracy is a great way to ensure your movement doesn't become a cult!

Our sessions and guests spanned a wide range of topics: prediction markets and forecasting, of course; but also finance, technology, philosophy, AI, video games, politics, journalism and more.

haha

Thank you, that is such a beautiful and liberating vision for the future!

As always, Valerie Solanas had the better plan sixty years ago.

Whether to continue to use females for reproduction or to reproduce in the laboratory will also become academic: what will happen when every female, twelve and over, is routinely taking the Pill and there are no longer any accidents? How many women will deliberately get or (if an accident) remain pregnant? No, Virginia, women don't just adore being brood mares, despite what the mass of robot, brainwashed women will say. When society consists of only the fully conscious the answer will be none. Should a certain percentage of men be set aside by force to serve as brood mares for the species? Obviously this will not do. The answer is laboratory reproduction of babies.

[...]

Why produce even females? Why should there be future generations? What is their purpose? When aging and death are eliminated, why continue to reproduce? Why should we care what happens when we're dead? Why should we care that there is no younger generation to succeed us.

Eventually the natural course of events, of social evolution, will lead to total female control of the world and, subsequently, to the cessation of the production of males and, ultimately, to the cessation of the production of females.

christ the level of bad faith wrongheaded nonsense you're getting in response is maddening

How would you justify your demand to stop sharing conspiracy theories? What's the rationale?

dude

Good try but his own disclaimer at the top ends up telling on him

[I haven’t independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can’t guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.]

That's nice Scott.

And right under there you've got

I’ll never tire of analogies putting the US / Europe gap into perspective - for example, did you know that the median black American household earns more ($48,297) than the median UK household (£35,000 = $44,450)?

Assuming these numbers are real, it's meaningless to compare gross salary, and not take into account the social contribution and whatever other taxes and contributions paid by the employer. I don't have good enough knowledge about how US and UK salaries break down to elaborate much, but a heuristic I've been applying is to just slash US salaries in two to get a better impression of the living conditions.

(And as the page Scott links to specifies, "According to the Census Bureau in 2021, the average non-Hispanic black median household income was $48,297 in comparison to $77,999 for non-Hispanic white households", so there you go)

Honestly, I reckon a field of wheat would be more sentient than a chatbot. It can sense its environment and it doesn't even need a prompt to do its thing.

I like how climate-change denying trolls in the replies are mainly advancing these two arguments:

• Temperature hasn't been rising over the 20th century, it's only an artefact of changing thermometers
• It used to be even warmer during the Roman Empire anyway

oh holy shit I was only a handful of paragraphs in but he literally says that!!!

So The New York Times implicitly accuses us of being racists, like Charles Murray, and instead of pointing out that being a racist like Charles Murray is the obviously correct position that sensible people will tend to reach in the course of being sensible, we disingenuously deny everything.

one point for (pseudo)intellectual honesty i guess!

"It was bad that the New York Times called Scott a racist, because he's a racist but in a way that makes it correct to be racist."

even Ayn Rand believed in love more than this