Current events discussion

[Speed Chaser]

I am not insinuating humans are the perfect design. I fail to see how AI can design something better without needing humans continuously to do it.

There's a lot of evidence to support that AI will need humans- considering there's never been a point where it hasn't ever. That's literally called evidence. There's literally zero evidence AI can survive by itself, at this point. If you say otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

Just because AI would be able to edit genes or manipulate DNA doesn't mean it's going to do it to create a new species or radically change human DNA. I think it's going to do it simply for purposes of control over humans, like editing or manipulating genes or gene expressions that make you think too much like I do.

If you're too stupid to see how an all-mighty AI, like the one you constantly scream about, can control humans, manipulate them, and self-improve, as you've claimed, without humans, then you clearly don't have any logic, do you?

The so called 'evidence' you posted, I've literally used to disprove your argument, idiot. When did I say AI can survive by itself at this point? Please point to it, dumbass. Then you ***** about me putting words in your mouth when that's literally what you just did. In every post, I have clearly stated that AI reaching a certain technological threshold would allow it to eliminate humans from the equation, but it's okay—I don't expect a moron like you to actually be able to read and think.

If AI has the capability to manipulate genetic material, why wouldn’t it push those boundaries and create a new species? You're assuming AI would follow some kind of ethical guideline humans created? But if it gains autonomy, who’s to stop it from deciding to experiment with biology in any way it wants? What proof do you have that it won't?

Now do as your told clown and respond with more bs to laugh at

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

If you're too stupid to see how an all-mighty AI, like the one you constantly scream about, can control humans, manipulate them, and self-improve, as you've claimed, without humans, then you clearly don't have any logic, do you?

The so-called 'evidence' you posted, I've literally used to disprove your argument, idiot. When did I say AI can survive by itself at this point? Please point to it, dumbass. Then you ***** about me putting words in your mouth when that's literally what you just did. In every post, I have clearly stated that AI reaching a certain technological threshold would allow it to eliminate humans from the equation, but it's okay—I don't expect a moron like you to actually be able to read and think.

Now do as your told clown and respond with more bs to laugh at

I really can't make exactly what you're saying in that first part.

I think it's an AI control system that they're aiming to use to control the entire world, yes.

It doesn't matter if you clearly state it, that doesn't mean you're right. You just keep saying AI will eliminate humans once it reaches a certain point with absolutely no proof that it can survive without them.

"In every post, I have clearly stated that AI reaching a certain technological threshold would allow it to eliminate humans from the equation, but it's okay—I don't expect a moron like you to actually be able to read and think."

'I don't expect a moron like you to be able to prove that'. I've shown how AI is going to merge with man and machine and be used to control humanity. I proved my end. I don't have anything else to prove..

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

Where is Al sharpton?

 

[Speed Chaser]

I really can't make exactly what you're saying in that first part.

I think it's an AI control system that they're aiming to use to control the entire world, yes.

It doesn't matter if you clearly state it, that doesn't mean you're right. You just keep saying AI will eliminate humans once it reaches a certain point with absolutely no proof that it can survive without them.

"In every post, I have clearly stated that AI reaching a certain technological threshold would allow it to eliminate humans from the equation, but it's okay—I don't expect a moron like you to actually be able to read and think."

I don't expect a moron like you to be able to prove that.

Good clown, you did exactly what I told you to do. Guess I must be an 'elite' since I already have you doing what I’m telling you. You dumb ****.

I think it's pretty clear what I’m saying, but you’re either too stupid to grasp it or just pretending to not get it because it shatters your little worldview.

Don’t you get tired of being a hypocrite? It’s you who’s bringing no proof that AI needs humans indefinitely. And you know that’s true because every piece of garbage you’ve posted has been used against you, brainless dimwit.

But don’t worry, I knew from the start you couldn’t defend your worthless viewpoint.

Come on clown type

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Good clown, you did exactly what I told you to do. Guess I must be an 'elite' since I already have you doing what I’m telling you. You dumb ****.

I think it's pretty clear what I’m saying, but you’re either too stupid to grasp it or just pretending to not get it because it shatters your little worldview.

Don’t you get tired of being a hypocrite? It’s you who’s bringing no proof that AI needs humans indefinitely. And you know that’s true because every piece of garbage you’ve posted has been used against you, brainless dimwit.

But don’t worry, I knew from the start you couldn’t defend your worthless viewpoint.

I don't have to prove that because that's the way it is right now and always has been and that is proof. You have to prove that it's not going to be that way lol. That's how it's always worked. I proved everything that I want to do.

You said AI will reach a point that it won't need humanity. That is your claim. That is your claim alone. That is your claim to prove, alone.

 

[Speed Chaser]

I don't have to prove that because that's the way it is right now and always has been and that is proof. You have to prove that it's not going to be that way lol. That's how it's always worked. I proved everything that I want to do.

You said AI will reach a point that it won't need humanity. That is your claim. That is your claim alone. That is your claim to prove, alone.

Good clown, keep doing as your elite tells you.

You really are a waste of air, aren’t you? 'Oh, because something is like this means it will always be like this.' Thank God the world doesn’t actually work like that. If it did, we’d still be using horses as the number one form of transportation.

The burden of proof isn’t on me to show that AI can eventually outgrow humanity. The burden’s on you to prove that it can’t. Just because AI hasn’t reached that point yet doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Every article you post about AI 'doomsday' only adds to the evidence that AI will reach that point. But you’re so caught up in trying to pit humans into the long run that you can’t get your *** out of your head long enough to realize they aren’t needed.

When someone claims something is impossible, they have the burden to prove it. You’re not doing that; you’re just repeating the same weak argument that AI needs humans forever, with zero evidence to back it up.

So once again, from the top:
Why would AI waste time on inefficient humans when it could create optimized biological systems that don’t have the upkeep requirements of humans?

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Good clown, keep doing as your elite tells you.

You really are a waste of air, aren’t you? 'Oh, because something is like this means it will always be like this.' Thank God the world doesn’t actually work like that. If it did, we’d still be using horses as the number one form of transportation.

The burden of proof isn’t on me to show that AI can eventually outgrow humanity. The burden’s on you to prove that it can’t. Just because AI hasn’t reached that point yet doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Every article you post about AI 'doomsday' only adds to the evidence that AI will reach that point. But you’re so caught up in trying to pit humans into the long run that you can’t get your *** out of your head long enough to realize they aren’t needed.

When someone claims something is impossible, they have the burden to prove it. You’re not doing that; you’re just repeating the same weak argument that AI needs humans forever, with zero evidence to back it up.

So once again, from the top:
Why would AI waste time on inefficient humans when it could create optimized biological systems that don’t have the upkeep requirements of humans?

Wow, you must be really bored. There is no burden on me to prove something that you're saying can happen, the burden is on you lol

 

[Speed Chaser]

Wow, you must be really bored. There is no burden on me to prove something that you're saying can happen, the burden is on you lol

I ain't even surprised you can’t grasp simple logic. The burden of proof is on you because you're claiming something can't happen. I’m simply saying AI can outgrow humanity, and you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that it can’t.

Once again, you're since you clearly need thing repeated the one claiming AI will always need humans, so it’s on you to show why that’s the case. But you can’t because you don’t have any real evidence, just a bunch of fear-based rambling. So, keep shifting the burden all you want; it just makes you look more foolish every time.

You're elite at waiting for your next rambling response.

So once again, from the top:
Why would AI waste time on inefficient humans when it could create optimized biological systems that don’t have the upkeep requirements of humans?

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Show me the conviction...or is that more of you anti-trump propaganda like the 30k you pulled out your ***?

I guess Rob's "boss" called and told him to get back to work.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

I guess Rob's "boss" called and told him to get back to work.

He's probably gonna post a graph that paints an incomplete picture

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

I ain't even surprised you can’t grasp simple logic. The burden of proof is on you because you're claiming something can't happen. I’m simply saying AI can outgrow humanity, and you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that it can’t.

Once again, you're since you clearly need thing repeated the one claiming AI will always need humans, so it’s on you to show why that’s the case. But you can’t because you don’t have any real evidence, just a bunch of fear-based rambling. So, keep shifting the burden all you want; it just makes you look more foolish every time.

You're elite at waiting for your next rambling response.

So once again, from the top:
Why would AI waste time on inefficient humans when it could create optimized biological systems that don’t have the upkeep requirements of humans?

If you're simply saying AI can outgrow humanity, then simply prove it. If you say AI can create bio systems that don't have upkeep requirement of humans, then prove it. I've seen zero proof of either.

 

[Speed Chaser]

If you're simply saying AI can outgrow humanity, then simply prove it. If you say AI can create bio systems that don't have upkeep requirement of humans, then prove it. I've seen zero proof of either.

Seriously, are you this thick-headed? I don’t need to 'prove' something that hasn’t happened yet—that’s how progress works, you dimwit. Just because AI hasn’t outgrown humanity yet doesn’t mean it won’t. I’m not claiming it’s happened, I’m saying it can—and you have zero evidence to back up your claim that it can’t.

So again, I don’t need to 'prove' the future to a fool who can’t even comprehend the present.

keep giving you're elite more to laugh at

So once again, from the top:
Why would AI waste time on inefficient humans when it could create optimized biological systems that don’t have the upkeep requirements of humans?
You cant answer can you HA

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Show me the conviction...or is that more of you anti-trump propaganda like the 30k you pulled out your ***?

"The former president made hay of that distinction when he sued Carroll in June, alleging Carroll defamed him by saying she was ***** in a media interview after the verdict.
The counterattack was quickly shot down.
Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled in August that the jury verdict showed Carroll's **** allegation was "substantially true" and dismissed the counterclaim."

In the decision, Judge Kaplan said this:
"The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “*****” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “*****” her as many people commonly understand the word “****.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that."
Since you will likely say I made it up, or it's "fake news" or "alternative definitions" or some other bullshit, you can read the decision yourself: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html

Like I said, you elected a ******. And a self-admitted ****** predator. A convicted felon. A racist.
Congrats.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Seriously, are you this thick-headed? I don’t need to 'prove' something that hasn’t happened yet—that’s how progress works, you dimwit. Just because AI hasn’t outgrown humanity yet doesn’t mean it won’t. I’m not claiming it’s happened, I’m saying it can—and you have zero evidence to back up your claim that it can’t.

So again, I don’t need to 'prove' the future to a fool who can’t even comprehend the present.

keep giving you're elite more to laugh at

So once again, from the top:
Why would AI waste time on inefficient humans when it could create optimized biological systems that don’t have the upkeep requirements of humans?
You cant answer can you HA

It doesn't matter what you think can happen, because you have no proof that it can. You have zero proof right now that AI can survive without humanity. "I don't need to prove something that I claimed can happen, how dare you ask that of me."

Prove that AI can create optimized biological systems that don’t have the upkeep requirements of humans. That is an assumption until you prove it.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

I guess Rob's "boss" called and told him to get back to work.

Nope. Cooking day.