[iinnPP]

I disagree. I think the brevity was warranted and beneficial to the message. I think it is easy to link the logic and thus contributing to the conversation in a meaningful way has a lower barrier for entry.

I don't think attacking people for asking questions is contributing anything at all however.

Your response to my immensely simplified question with "they are wrong" fails to acknowledge a potentially real problem. A problem where too late is immediately followed by a successful attempt.

I see a lot of this today, much more so on HN lately too. I see people failing to be creative and resorting to some kind of "pics or it didn't happen" stance.

The idea that an AI that might be pushed through a legal challenge related to the constitution isn't far fetched in the slightest. It is guaranteed to occur. Not preparing for it is expected and while I love the feeling I get every time I predict the obvious but I would rather it stop occurring. It's short lived and the consequences have been growing.

You think AI is 20 years off. I happen to know for a fact it is already here.

Humans are not complicated.

[Dylan16807]

> I think it is easy to link the logic and thus contributing to the conversation in a meaningful way has a lower barrier for entry.

It's two words. The problem is that it's too easy to link it to multiple, different arguments.

As a more extreme example, if I say "Well, except..." that is a bad comment even if people can fill in the blank with stuff.

> The idea that an AI that might be pushed through a legal challenge related to the constitution isn't far fetched in the slightest.

As being human? Today's tech? Yes it is.