You're confusing "intelligence" with "goals". That's like confusing theorems with axioms. You can challenge the theorems. Say, for instance, the the proof is invalid. You can't challenge axioms (within the system). And you can't challenge the goals of the AI. You can challenge the plans it has to achieve them.

A sufficiently superhuman AI would, itself, be a risk, because it would work to achieve whatever it was designed to achieve, and not worry about any costs it wasn't designed to worry about.

Once you approach human intelligence (even as closely as he currently freely available LLMs) you really need to start worrying about the goals the AI is designed to try to achieve.

Specialized superintelligence is quite plausible. We don't have it yet, but close. Few people can do protein folding projections as well as a specialized AI. Just about nobody can out compute a calculator. Etc.

Your general point is quite valid, but I think you don't properly understand it. IIUC, we've got the basis for an AGI, but it needs LOTS of development. And LLMs are only one of the pieces needed, so it's not surprising that they have lots of failure modes. And once you get a real AGI, you've got the basis for super-human intelligence. So aiming directly for "SuperIntelligence!" is the wrong approach. (But if you're after a headline, proclaiming it is a good approach.)

Perhaps he thinks that in his field hallucinations don't matter. Perhaps he's right. I remember a famous elephant that beat the stock market. (I think it was also done with other animals.) Also see "A Random Walk through Wall Street"

I'm all in favor of space travel, but that's not going to solve the social problems on earth, and we don't yet have the ability to run a small self-sufficient stable society in an off-earth environment.

I do support space habitats, but I tend to think of that as a "next century" (or after the singularity) kind of thing.

What a large war does is kill of a large proportion of the most aggressive young males. It's one of the traditional ways the current crop of alpha-male primates keep control.

Nope. They apply everywhere, everywhen. If something is unstable in an environment, it tends to disappear from that environment. If it's stable (by definition) it tends to persist. And the environment is all those things it's interacting with.

So what you're saying is the success of Alpha-Beta pruning depends on the evaluation function. Yeah, that's correct. Getting the evaluation function, though, can be a real problem

How tall? Most people can do 3-ring towers consistently. I don't know anyone who can do eight rings. (I've also seen versions with 4 pegs, but I don't know what that does to the math.)

It was applied, you just need a slightly more basic definition of evolution. Rather than "survival of the fittest" consider "survival of the stable". With that slight modification it handles the evolution of planets, reproducing molecules, life, species, stars, etc. And "the fittest" was always defined in terms of being stable in a particular environment.

And we have the steam deck, which does this thing already without inviting MS into the home.

I think "dedicated coprocessors" are going to have longer traces, and thus be slower, unless, perhaps, you connect them with an optical link. (That, of course, has its own problems.)

It's not a coincidence, but the causation is not direct. It's just that both are driven by another cause. Both funding cuts to research, arbitrary decisions about visas, etc. are driven by xenophobic paranoia.

This *isn't* to claim that there aren't real concerns, but the real concerns are a trivial proportion.

Those are probably also practical in parts of Florida, California, and perhaps Texas.

Sorry, but that's not "regardless of the winter". A hard freeze will kill them off. I lived in a place where that was a "once in 20 years" event, but it still happened. (Granted, it never got hot enough for the bananas to fruit.)

That is a half-truth. China is 100% guilty of everything they are accused of, and more. That's not proaganda.

But yes, we've given them too much money and allowed their fetid mass of government to be a threat. There is propaganda sold to the west by our own oligarchs, with the notion that by allowing them to exploit the cheap labor market of China, we would all be uplifted into the intellectual and cultural elite. Obviously that doesn't work, toilets need cleaning too. However by our having invested so much money into China, rather than dominating them and cracking them open, we instead started to get infected with their rot, and yes, they now have the power to be dangerous to our oligarchs. That doesn't change the equation any, they need to be shut down.

Of course we do also need to shut our oligarchs down too.