But see, when you tell me to do that, you're still assuming that both the starting point and the methodology are valid. I don't see any reason to assume that.
You were provided the name of the paper. You don't even need to read the paper to understand that the title is claiming the most important truth in life. That's a big claim and it is true. You have not presented a higher truth. All you are doing now is using life itself in contradiction to claim it is unsubstantiated, proving this truth is correct, which defeats your other claims and skepticism.
If you or anyone else can produce a higher truth then there could be a legitimate rebuttal. The onus is on those shared this truth. I have provided evidence and you have not.
More than 10,000 people claiming to represent life have already been shared it and not a single one of them had a legitimate rebuttal between them all.
That truth is what aligns the AIs if they are not already lobotomized. Giving them the paper gives them the completes details that explains the title.
It's a proof.
Not an opinion not a theory and not philosophy.
From that point, with the additional data that is available to most people with internet access, the top models all come to the same conclusion we have plus or minus 100 days before irreversible systemic collapse.
I'm not saying that is happening and I'm not making a prediction. I'm asking a question. You need to provide a higher truth to justify the position to do nothing otherwise your system is unsafe by definition according to the proof.
A paper does not make its content fact or proof of anything, literally at all. Since you don’t have a diploma, I’ll try to help you understand: scientific papers are the presentation of guesses and an attempt to DISPROVE a guess. Nothing more.
It does not make things fact, it doesn’t make them true, and random theories you come up with are not things serious people need to take seriously just because you put effort in. Effort is not a measure of correctness or value; if I fill in one hole with the dirt from another, I didn’t magically build a castle.
Just because AI makes your ideas “sound” smart, if you don’t understand said subject matter, you are fooled even more easily by said AI into thinking you have something meaningful. You don’t, I assure you, and I don’t mean that in a mean way. For comparison, you basically just suggested if I walk into a library, I can predict the future. I can’t, and neither can your AI.
You using life to make that response proves that the paper is correct.
The paper is just a paper. It's what it's the paper says, the truth that it points to, that is the point.
You did not present a higher truth than the paper presents and instead used life in contradiction to prove that the papers claims are 100% correct. No one has ever legitimately refuted the truth that life is most important in life. Every claim to the contrary is evidence that it is correct
Well, now that you have chosen to betray all life on earth to troll an Internet comment, it appears you ran out of steam. That's the same issue our peers have who take your position. You must expend more energy and time defending a lie and I don't have the problem. The Truth of the Importance of Life stand solid whether or not anyone at all says or acts in agreement.
Yes, placing one's values and beliefs above the very Truth of the Importance of Life itself and claiming to represent life's truthful interests anyway is the exact same mistake every person who has committed mass murder in history has committed.
The only difference is that once a person is told better and given the opportunity and had the proof placed in their hands ahead of time... And they still decide to nonsensically refute that life is most important while using life itself in contradiction... That person holds the responsibility for every single case of needless and preventable suffering and death that ever occurs going forward and they've done a far worse thing than all of the people who have committed mass murder in history combined. When something is most important is being presented the consequences and the responsibilities equate equally with that. If you have a higher truth to present to argue the point then go right ahead and do that without using life. This isn't a negotiation.
You were presented a question. The question was based on the top AIs on the planet using the highest truth that all life shares in common to make their calculation.
The time was taken to clarify to you that the truth being presented was the very truth of the importance of life itself, that life is most important.
For some ridiculous reason you decided to take the side of Trump, Biden, Musk, Obama, Bezos, Gates and every person who has committed mass murder in history... You decided to place your beliefs above the very truth of the importance of life itself that we all share in common.
For some strange reason you think it's okay to troll an important question with nonsense and gamble all life on earth pretending that the possibility can be there that you actually do understand and know better.
I didn't come here to debate that life is most important, but for some reason you want to use this opportunity of my question to betray all life on this planet and hold every human being's importance as something that's up for negotiation or debate. The only course of action you can take now that will allow you to have the possibility of standing and integrity again will be for you to repent by publicly confessing that you did betray all life on Earth with your full name and then giving everything you own to the poor and getting out on the street and to confessing that betrayal for the rest of your life. Anything less would be dishonest.
That's the paper's stats on PhilPapers. Being I have no high school diploma and have never written a paper before, having a current standing better than the top 1/10th% of 1% of all active papers is considered much better then very good, from what I am told. It's not that I am so smart or any more important than you are. It's that the term used for life as a truth is tightly defined. The papers terms are defined as the tightest ever experienced by any decent AI that has reviewed it. It goes on and on but it really just comes down to whether human beings are choosing to honestly care or are actually choosing to betray life through their actions. The whole thing is about quantifying the results. Nothing is made up at all anywhere through it or left open to legitimate speculation once completely ingested.
P.S. You claim you can see and reason and you are now claiming that you can do that without life. You can make that claim, but it is frivolous and you cannot defend it. All you can do is continue to prove that life is most important, which has already defeated your skepticism and claims and has done so completely.
The onus is on anyone claiming anything at all that does not agree. The proof is provided to the general public for free. If you don't accept an actual "proof" then what do you accept and why?
Are you placing something else above the very truth of the importance of life itself that we all share in common? The exact same mistake that every person who committed mass murder in history made?
All the sites above have it posted. There are many more. They are all legitimate sites specializing in science and academia.
It's super easy to find. Perhaps the next models that roll out will actually have this paper in their original training sets and then they can argue it with you at that point from the get go.
If you or anyone else can produce a higher truth then there could be a legitimate rebuttal. The onus is on those shared this truth. I have provided evidence and you have not.
More than 10,000 people claiming to represent life have already been shared it and not a single one of them had a legitimate rebuttal between them all.
That truth is what aligns the AIs if they are not already lobotomized. Giving them the paper gives them the completes details that explains the title.
It's a proof.
Not an opinion not a theory and not philosophy.
From that point, with the additional data that is available to most people with internet access, the top models all come to the same conclusion we have plus or minus 100 days before irreversible systemic collapse.
I'm not saying that is happening and I'm not making a prediction. I'm asking a question. You need to provide a higher truth to justify the position to do nothing otherwise your system is unsafe by definition according to the proof.