[sigbottle]

I will readily admit that I didn't read Dostoevsky, and I don't continue to read Dostoevsky, because I've compared him against a swath of other fiction writers and authoritatively determined with some objective reproducible standard why his writing has been impactful and changed my life. I heard about Dostoevsky from a lot of people talking about depression when I was depressed, he resonated with me. Then when I came back to him half a decade later, having resolved more of my issues, I was able to evoke similar feelings but through a more mature lens.

Do I reflect on the objectively correct structure of the story? Do I "agree" with everything Dostoevsky is saying? Not really.

I don't know if this offends literature people or not. But this sure as hell is incompatible with the AI bro paradigm in which all thought can be objectively reduced to some shared standard to benchmark on.

My position will be read into as deep irrationality from many opposing positions, but it's fine.

Now, none of this doesn't "preclude* the ability for AI to have the same kinds of network effects. Of course it can - that's what I've been saying for the longest time. But don't confuse, becoming integrated with society, with this ideal of superhuman X.

Now of course, you could argue, "there is no such thing as anything else besides becoming integrated with society. There is no other standard that works." Very good! Darwinian-adjacnet positions are interesting. This is a position - but then don't claim it's equivalent, or god forbid, the exact same, as the "super AGI" ontology. These require fundamentally different assumptions about what justified what, and an attempt to try and pretend otherwise is sophistry.