On Free Speech
Afraid of free and open discussion?
Interesting!!! So were the Nazis!
Their excuse was public safety.
Whats yours?
14 Replies
Bro read the last line of the quote you posted.
Is silencing discussion not a component of fascism?
Its not a paradox, you are a fascist.
Fwiw I didn't make this OP. Idk who did, but it wasnt me. I wrote the words I but didn't make the post.
Please take me at face value when I ask this - I am not trying to undermine you or your points. I do share some of your concerns about AI.
How aware of your mental health are you in general and right now?
Have you considered the possibility you're going through some sort of mental or emotional breakdown?
Please take me at face value when I ask this - I am not trying to undermine you or your points. I do share some of your concerns about AI.
How aware of your mental health are you in general and right now?
Have you considered the possibility you're going through some sort of mental or emotional breakdown?
Yes, I have considered the possibility I am going through a mental breakdown. I have considered this because of your post, and I appreciate your concern for my health 😀
Now, have you considered that AI might be an existential threat and you just don't know it yet?
edit: If you are concerned for my well-being, I would appreciate if you made sure the world's governments put explosive devices on the world's data centers. I don't need empty words or lip service, I need immediate direction action in order to feel better.
immediate direct action* 😀
Yes, I have considered the possibility I am going through a mental breakdown. I have considered this because of your post, and I appreciate your concern for my health 😀
Now, have you considered that AI might be an existential threat and you just don't know it yet?
I have. I concluded AI poses zero existential threat. AGI is a different story. If...., then yeah AGI would pose an existential threat. But that's a big if. I'd say AGI ranges between 100% fiction to impossible and the only reason I'm not saying it's impossible is because it is conceivable without contradiction like say a disembodied mind.
Going from AI to AGI isn't incremental. And despite all the hype, there are currently no human beings on earth attempting to construct an AGI system -- largely because no one on earth has even come up with a theory on how we would go about constructing one.
Did you know that AI disagrees with you?
Did you know that AI think's the best course of action for humans is to stop AI?
I dont distinguish between AI, AGI, AFI, APTI, AII, etc, I just call it all Artificial Intelligence or AI.
Me: My position is that while full-blown AGI would create an existential threat to humanity, AI in it's first or second wave renditions does not. I'm not claiming that a bad faith actor couldn't use AI to end humanity, just that AI in and of itself wouldn't in a way that we couldn't prevent the end of us.
AI: That’s a reasonable position. The existential risk from AGI comes from the idea that it could develop autonomous decision-making, self-improvement capabilities, and goals misaligned with human interests. However, today’s AI—whether in its first or second wave—is fundamentally different because it lacks true agency.
A key distinction is that AGI is not just a more advanced version of current AI but something entirely different in nature. Today’s AI, no matter how sophisticated, remains a tool—it follows statistical patterns, predefined objectives, and human-designed architectures. It does not have independent thought, intrinsic motivation, or the ability to pursue goals beyond what humans explicitly program. Every AI decision, from generating text to making predictions, is constrained by its training data, input prompts, and system architecture.
AGI, by contrast, would be an entirely new category of intelligence—one that could set its own goals, understand the world across different domains like a human, and take autonomous action without direct human control. This would be a fundamental shift, not just an incremental improvement. Unlike today’s AI, AGI would no longer be a passive tool but an independent agent with the ability to change its own objectives and potentially act in ways we didn’t anticipate or design for.
Because of this distinction, current AI does not inherently pose an existential risk—at least not in a way we couldn't mitigate. The real danger lies in how AI is used, particularly by bad actors who might exploit it for harmful purposes, such as disinformation, cyberattacks, or autonomous weaponry. But these are risks stemming from human misuse, not from AI itself acting independently. Until AI transitions into something capable of true agency—AGI—it remains a powerful but ultimately controllable tool.
