Oof on the part of the author though:

Eliezer Yudkowsky: Nope.

Algernoq (the blogpost author): I assume this is a "Nope, because of secret author evidence that justifies a one-word rebuttal" or a "Nope, you're wrong in several ways but I have higher-value things to do than retype the sequences". (Also, it's an honor; I share your goal but take a different road.) [...]

Richard_Kennaway: What goal do you understand yourself to share with Eliezer, and what different road?

Algernoq: I don't deserve to be arrogant here, not having done anything yet. The goal: I had a sister once, and will do what I can to end death. The road: I'm working as an engineer (and, on reflection, failing to optimize) instead of working on existential risk-reduction. My vision is to build realistic (non-nanotech) self-replicating robots to brute-force the problem of inadequate science funding. I know enough mechanical engineering but am a few years away from knowing enough computer science to do this.

The best answer will be unsettling to both the hard skeptics of AI and the true believers.

I do love a good middle ground fallacy.

EDIT:

Why did the artist paint the sky blue in this landscape painting? […] when really, the answer is simply: Because the sky is blue!

I do abhor a "Because the curtains were blue" take.

EDIT^2:

In humans, a lot of problem-solving capabilities are highly correlated with each other.

Of course "Jagged intelligence" is also—stealthily?—believing in the "g-factor".

The whole email thing does resemble Morton's fork:

1. See! They didn't answer the email! Clearly it means this employee is fraudulent or incompetent.
2. See! My wonderful AI assessed that the 5 bullet points are in insufficient reason for keeping them around.

It's a bit of a slimey attempt at complete discretionary firing, which Elon or even Trump can't possibly actually have the authority for.

I wonder if one of the reasons they're so young is that's the age you'd have to be to not realize in how much legal trouble they might be putting themselves in. (Bar an eventual pardon from Trump.)

I remember being quite ticked off by her takes about free will, and specifically severly misrepresenting compatibilism and calling philosphers stupid for coming up with the idea.

I think that particular talking point also serves an exculpatory purpose: "If it was only a razor-thin victory I might understand being angry with me, but see it's a decisive victory. He has the mandate ~~of heaven~~ of the people (this is a Trumpian victory! not a Democrat failure!) ! It would be wrong not to congratulate him!"

Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from ~~science~~ bullshit!

From "Girl Genius"

Another dumb take from Yud on twitter (xcancel.com):

@ESYudkowsky: The worst common electoral system after First Past The Post - possibly even a worse one - is the parliamentary republic, with its absurd alliances and frequently falling governments.

A possible amendment is to require 60% approval to replace a Chief Executive; who otherwise serves indefinitely, and appoints their own successor if no 60% majority can be scraped together. The parliament's main job would be legislation, not seizing the spoils of the executive branch of government on a regular basis.

Anything like this ever been tried historically? (ChatGPT was incapable of understanding the question.)

1. Parliamentary Republic is a government system not a electoral system, many such republics do in fact use FPTP.
2. Not highlighted in any of the replies in the thread, but "60% approval" is—I suspect deliberately—not "60% votes", it's way more nebulous and way more susceptible to Executive/Special-Interest-power influence, no Yud polls are not a substitute for actual voting, no Yud you can't have a "Reputation" system where polling agencies are retro-actively punished when the predicted results don't align with—what would be rare—voting.
3. What you are describing is just a monarchy of not wanting to deal with pesky accountability beyond fuzzy exploitable popularity contest (I mean even kings were deposed when they pissed off enough of the population) you fascist little twat.
4. Why are you asking ChatGPT then twitter instead of spending more than two minutes thinking about this, and doing any kind of real research whatsoever?

It's also insane to believe it should be a first class feature, when those who god forbid want to "opt-in" could simply install a plugin.

I hadn't paid enough attention to the actual image found in the Notepad build:

Original neutral text obscured by the suggestion:

The Romans invaded Britain as th...

Godawful anachronistic corporate-speaky insipid suggested replacement, seemingly endorsing the invasion?

The romans embarked on a strategic invasion of Britain, driven by the ambition to expand their empire and control vital resources. Led by figures like Julius Caesar and Emperor Claudius, this conquest left an indelible mark on history, shaping governance, architecture, and culture in Britain. The Roman presence underscored their relentless pursuit of imperial dominance and resource acquisition.

The image was presumably not fully approved/meant to be found, but why is it this bad!?

You can take solace in the fact that mxcl hasn't contributed to brew since 2012 (I guess the world ended) at least in terms of commits.

EDIT: Even if they are better at PR the mere fact that they would be onboard with tea and AI generated logos/descriptions foisted on projects that didn't ask for them, and acting confused when people are justifiably angry, shows a disturbing lack of care and consideration. (Paired with I take it incorrect installation scripts even)

One (simpler) explanation is that proving an absence of something is almost impossible, and that attempting too hard would make them look a heck of a lot guilty.

There is a good reason why the burden of evidence is “innocent until proven guilty”, and yes this extends to the (in your eyes) untrustworthy.

Prove to me you never stole candy from a store as a child (or if you did, replace that accusation with any item of higher value until you hit something you did not steal)