[valar_m]

> As an aside: If someone reaches the correct answer for the wrong reasons, are they wrong? Personally, I'm pragmatic, and don't care how people reach my ideals on the proper treatment of people.

Forgot to respond to this part in my other reply so I'll just create a new one.

The entire purpose of the article is to promote anti-Semitic and racist ideas with thinly veiled dog whistles. The author isn't reaching the same conclusion as you at all - their intention is to promote hatred.

That's the whole point of a dog whistle - to promote hate and discrimination to those who would be receptive while maintaining some sliver of deniability.

It's frustrating to see that it worked so well on you in this particular case, but it's a good reminder of how effective dog whistling can be.

[tb_technical]

It didn't "work" on me. I read the article, picked up on the fact that this guy's is probably conservative, and was pleasantly surprised by the conclusion he drew to the problem of AI making intelligence obsolete.

I can form my own opinions, without people like you insinuating that I've been manipulated.

[valar_m]

What do you mean it didn't work on you? You're defending an article written by someone who promotes indisputably anti-Semitic conspiracy theories[0].

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38439602