Hacker News Reader

Comment by therealpygon | Hacker News Reader

“Can and will”

Yeah bud, you definitely aren’t saying the outcome is automatic. Or maybe you are, and the low IQ take is in not recognizing it?

View on HN

I remember reading a study which determined one basic property shared by people of low intelligence is the inability to reason about hypotheticals. Let me walk through this slowly for you, as you are the one who said this, “ I personally believe anyone who thinks that uncontrolled super-intelligence will be the automatic outcome is an absolute idiot likely to have a below-average IQ”.

IF someone supports an uncontrollable superintelligence, THEN they have bad intentions for humanity (=traitor).

I understand that you don’t understand. Reiterating that doesn’t help.

No one, at all, at any point “supported” uncontrollable super-intelligence. They questioned your idiotic reasoning of how not believing in your ASSumed outcome makes them traitorous. Which you’ve still failed to be capable of recognizing, thus making it all the more humorous to read.

I understand that is what you’re doing, but I’m not sure why you’re doing it. Because I’ve explained to you multiple times I was just commenting that Bernie Sanders needn’t include this obvious point in the bill. However I guess he should since there are people like you out there who simply cannot grasp obvious points.

Yes, you’ve been trolling everyone in this thread about how they are traitors in response to them questioning someone who stated that anyone who disagreed with pausing AI are traitors because they support “super intelligence”, not even “uncontrolled”. You didn’t “just” do anything, and you should probably try reading your comments and the context again rather than whatever obvious point you thought you were “just” making. I mean that is why you just made an observation and moved on? Right?

Nah, it was this instead:

“I was just saying they didn’t need to include some text, repeatedly, 28 times while saying people are traitors. But then I’m gonna try to say I wasn’t actually doing that even though I did it repeatedly, because obviously everyone else was just too stupid to understand my absolutely useless observation that I felt I needed to defend repeatedly because obviously everyone is too dumb to understand my incredible observatory powers, and people couldn’t possibly be disagreeing because I look like an idiot repeatedly trolling about people being traitors.”

Did you really think everyone was disagreeing that it wasn’t necessary? You really are something, fun times watching it though, but hey, you should definitely repeat that silly observation one more time.

“They included a provision to certify again that they agree with common sense, how unnecessary!” No kidding dumb-dumb… that’s why they do it…so people voting against it can be labeled traitors to humanity…like you’ve been doing…

Does it really need to be spelled out so plainly how useless your observation is and the net effect of your incessant replying to people who disagree with the person you decided to defend with your “observation”? Nevermind, apparently it does since your 6 defensive comments deep “just” making an observation.

You are literally unable to hold a hypothetical in your head, just like in that study. It’s amazing. I’m trying to help you understand what this thread is about but you simply cannot do it.

I didn’t read any of your post btw.

You’re still taking? Literally no one cares about your opinion in this entire thread, but uh, go ahead and keep making your idiot point.

Here you can have the last word since you apparently need it so bad for “just” saying something:

Okay so a conditional works like this. There is a proposition A implies B. This does not mean A is true or false. It means that if A actually were true, then B would also be true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com