I have no knowledge or insight on the topic, but I used to get recommendations for "intelligence squared" videos on YouTube and I always thought it was a terrible, self-aggrandizing title for a series or event. Smart People Taking About Smart Things.
maol
I should probably give it a go!
I would also like to complain that I have finally started getting AI summaries in Google, and I may have to switch to a different search engine. Neither wanted nor needed!
My University Keeps Sending Me Stupid Emails About AI, a continuing series:
From the email:
The debate will be chaired by Michael Pike. Speaking for the motion are Prof. Gregory O'Hare (TCD), Maeve Hynes, Prof. Gary Boyd and Chatgpt assisted by Student Curator Ruan McCabe, all UCD. Speaking against the motion are David Capener (UU), Lucy O'Connell, Peter Cody and Meabh O'Leary, all UCD.
There's a comment in there about how well it reflects on the British system that Bobby Sands was allowed to stand as an MP for Sinn Féin despite being an IRA member and a prisoner. This ignores that a) Sinn Féin policy was and is not to take seats in the British parliament, so he wouldn't have been voting or sitting on any committees, and b) Bobby Sands died in prison on hunger strike.
These chumps are a disgrace to Harry Potter fans, and I say that in full knowledge of how embarrassing Harry Potter fans can be!!!!
How is Hanania the "ex" Nazi a credible source on this at all? For fucks sake!
That was always gonna happen!
unifying demands
hostile takeover
Pick one, you can't have both.
They need an option for "very uncomfortable".
I think starting with Sam Bankman Fried is a solid idea. Relatively informed members of the general public a) know who that guy is, and b) know that he made some really poor decisions. He does not have the silicon valley mystique that attaches itself to some other adherents, I think fewer people will think "well that guy is really smart, why would he be in a cult". Then you can go back and explain EA and LessWrong and Yudkowsky's role in all of this.