In the book “The World Without Us” the author states that old steel bridges would be among the last human made structures left thousands of years after humas have dissapeared for the reason that they didn’t have strenght calculations back then which they solved by simply overbuilding everything.

The level of consciousness in something like a brain parasite or a slug is probably so dim that it barely feels like anything to be one. So even if you were reincarnated as one, you likely wouldn’t have much of a subjective experience of it. The only way to really experience a new life after reincarnation would be to come back as something with a complex enough mind to actually have a vivid sense of existence. Not that it matters much - it’s not like you’d remember any of your past lives anyway.

If reincarnation were real and I had to bet money on how it works, I’d put it down to something like the many‑worlds interpretation of quantum physics - where being “reborn as yourself” just means living out one of your alternate timelines in a parallel universe.

Is “AI slop” synonymous with AI content in general? I’ve always thought it to mean bad AI content specifically.

I don’t consider myself neurotypical yet I see our current AI progress as net-positive. I don’t like AI slop either in the sense that I understand the term but I’ve encountered a lot of good AI generated content.

Looking back, I realize I was pretty immature at 22. It didn’t feel that way at the time, but it sure does now. These days, 18‑year‑olds look like kids to me.

I didn’t want kids back then, and I still don’t - but my perspective has shifted a little. When I see parents now, there’s a slight melancholic feeling that comes with knowing that’s something I’ll probably never experience.

So yeah, if you’re 30 and don’t want kids, that’s probably not going to change. Before that, though, there’s always a chance.

I’ll make sure to try crying tomorrow in the hopes that my tools magically appear on the jobsite.

I agree with the sentiment but despite the vast amount of pushback and downvotes I get for voicing certain views it’s extremely rare for me to have my comments removed let alone be banned. Some individual communities might be worse than others and .ml communities you should avoid like the plague anyway but broadly speaking I’d still claim that it’s pretty difficult to get mods to take action against you as long as you’re being polite.

And as a self-employed I only know how much I earned at the end of the year which could be wildly different than the year before.

I’m not sure I know what I want for life but I have a number of things I don’t want so I’m trying my best to steer clear of those.

I have next to zero urge to “keep up with the news.” I’m under no obligation to know what’s going on in the world at all times. If something is important, I’ll hear about it from somewhere anyway - and if I don’t hear about it, it probably wasn’t that important to begin with.

I’d argue the “optimal” amount of news is whatever’s left after you actively take steps to avoid most of it. Unfiltered news consumption in today’s environment is almost certainly way, way too much.

Way to move the goalposts.

If you take that question seriously for a second - AlphaFold doesn’t spew chemicals or drain lakes. It’s a piece of software that runs on GPUs in a data center. The environmental cost is just the electricity it uses during training and prediction.

Now compare that to the way protein structures were solved before: years of wet lab work with X‑ray crystallography or cryo‑EM, running giant instruments, burning through reagents, and literally consuming tons of chemicals and water in the process. AlphaFold collapses that into a few megawatt‑hours of compute and spits out a 3D structure in hours instead of years.

So if the concern is environmental footprint, the AI way is dramatically cleaner than the old human‑only way.

Well let’s hear some suggestions then.

Artificial intelligence isn’t designed to maximize human fulfillment. It’s built to minimize human suffering.

What it cannot do is answer the fundamental questions that have always defined human existence: Who am I? Why am I here? What should I do with my finite time on Earth?

Expecting machines to resolve existential questions is like expecting a calculator to write poetry. We’re demanding the wrong function from the right tool.

Pretty weird statements. There’s no such thing as just “AI” - they should be more specific. LLMs aren’t designed to maximize human fulfillment or minimize suffering. They’re designed to generate natural-sounding language. If they’re talking about AGI, then that’s not designed for any one thing - it’s designed for everything.

Comparing AGI to a calculator makes no sense. A calculator is built for a single, narrow task. AGI, by definition, can adapt to any task. If a question has an answer, an AGI has a far better chance of figuring it out than a human - and I’d argue that’s true even if the AGI itself isn’t conscious.

It won’t solve anything

Go tell that to AlphaFold which solved a decades‑old problem in biology by predicting protein structures with near lab‑level accuracy.

I mean - it’s certainly possible, but you’d still be risking that 500k prize if you got caught.

And most people seem to tap out because of loneliness or starvation, so if you were going to cheat, you’d pretty much have to smuggle in either food or a better way of getting it - like a decent fishing rod and proper lures.

I’ve put things in my ass for no points. 1000 points sure sounds worth it.

They do regular health check-ins with the contestants, and if you’re not losing weight but there’s no footage of you catching food, they’re going to figure out pretty quickly that something’s up.

On top of that, the locations are chosen so that just hiking out to you with food would be a survival challenge in itself - and coming in by boat would almost certainly be noticed.

Interestingly, I’ve just been binge watching the show for the first time. I’m on season 5 currently.

Two
spaces
before
you
press
enter.

What are you suggesting exactly? You have an actual solution here to offer or you just want to be a smart ass?

When people have sex, they usually do it in private, without any witnesses. Whatever happens during that time is often difficult to prove afterward, since it typically comes down to one person’s word against the other’s. Unless there’s clear physical evidence of assault, it can be extremely hard to establish that something was done against someone’s will. Most reasonable people would agree that “she said so” alone doesn’t amount to proof - and isn’t, by itself, a valid basis for sending someone to prison.

“If we just trusted women”

We don’t trust people based on their gender. We trust them based on credibility and evidence. If there’s even the tiniest amount of doubt then it better to let the guilty walk free rather than put an innocent person in jail. And I’m speaking broadly here - not about Trump specifically.