“You must have a large family to feed.” “Ya.” " Here?" “Naw.”

F*** their data and f*** it’s relevancy. /s

Some indigenous peoples cooperate with their natural environment. Humans are fundamentally a keystone species that’s collectively gotten really bad at it, to get good at other things. We could have human conventions, art, and technology that works entirely with nature and our environment rather than against it. Between these facts, I’m not a fan of that definition.

The article seems to think the comparison of human intelligence with artificial intelligence is caused by naming it “intelligence” which would be a fallacy. Related to ambiguous semantic nature of inherently vague language. Saying “the article thinks” shouldn’t lead anyone to assume anyone believes articles have minds, it’s just showing the relationship between the idea and presentation.

The naming convention doesn’t help, but a more direct cause would be the fact that those funding the research are most interested in automation to replace people, and so the idea is sold to them that way, so it’s built towards that goal. It’s a commonly accepted inevitability even going back to Rosie Jetson. I agree with the article that it doesn’t need to be, it would be better for humanity if we thought of it as enhancing human intelligence rather than replacing it and built towards those interests.

Unfortunately the motivation of Capitalism is to pay as few people as possible as little as possible to still maximize profitable quality. Convincing them improving worker quality over outright replacing expensive (now mental) labor with high-output automation is a tough sell. Maybe the inability to profit from LLMs will convince them, but I doubt it.

How we express math is particular to us, though it’d be commonly decipherable. Math is more and more globally standardized as more of it gets globally acknowledged as “the most useful” way to do math. E.g. place holder 0 vs Roman Numerals. Ratios are conceptually universal to any species that bothers measuring. Quantification maybe less so. Especially if their comprehension of advanced sciences/engineering is somehow intuitive instead of formally calculated.

If a space faring species has a concept of proportions/ratios, but not individual identity of numbers, presenting Meters as a portion of the speed of light might be a universal way discern the rest of our math. Water as Liters might be more accessible, depending on how they think of water.

Sets and Axioms are purely conceptually representative and so viable as long as they’re capable of symbolic abstraction at all.

A self-fulfilling prophecy, if they will.

“Oh gosh, I hope AI doesn’t become Terminator.” AI: “Oh, that seems cool. Let’s do that. But with a bit of Matrix because I’m connecting those dots.”

OldTimerz! All the powers of an Olympic genius with the respected presence and not-giving-a-damn of an old woman!