AI Expert Yudkowsky Warns Destiny About The AI Threat | LIVE DEBATE 

LMFAO GOT EM

Ain't no wayyyy

😂

gg

Yo! That was what I was thrown off on. Facts

repent to God

​@@Baggerz182repent to deez nuts

@@Baggerz182ok now what

@@bruhdabonesnow you send nooods to your crush and cross your fingers. It works

@@BeerBreath702 holy shit she said “that’s actually kinda big 🤤”

I took him for granted. Its been a while since I saw a guy like that. And honestly i dont miss it.

How would you say nerds are now? Lol

@@pspmaster2071 they've all transitioned

@@iammrpositive5108 I don't think I would call those nerds.

I know multiple people in real life who are studying/practicing computer science and they are exactly like this. Honestly, I hate how the term nerdy just means whatever now: anyone who isn't conventionally attractive and plays video games, anyone who is interested in anime, comics or obsessed with a fandom, anyone who studies something with lots of math or just someone who doesn't leave the house that much, has bad social skills and also no girlfriend of course. Nowadays being nerdy sometimes just means being smart lol Back then it was like the whole package, you know?

And the audacity that it’s YELLOW

he looks like a nerdy pimp

Damn, stop doggin on him. That's a sick ass hat

I wish everyone dressed like that. Things would be better.

There’s an entire “subculture” where the most important thing is to never hurt other people’s feelings unless they’ve committed certain moral transgressions. If he’s not wearing it just for this interview and wears it out in public, it’s because nobody has the heart to say anything about it, especially if they’re not close with him. That aside, he’s simply WonkaMaxing

I couldn't listen to this dude speak both times I've seen him pop up for this exact reason. AI might be undersold and misunderstood to an extent, but for the foreseeable future, it's 100000000000000% limited by the data we put into it and the creativity of the people setting its algorithms. Emotionality, subjectivity, and bias plays a GIGANTIC role in how we problem solve, implement logic, and emerge conscious experience. If AI develops consciousness, it will be a ruleset put in place and be *MASSIVELY* tempered/regulated by human beings in the process of its development.

@@divinemeta Depends on how you define creativity. Many people come up with creative ideas based on input received from tutors, schools and their peers. We are all just a collection of life times of data, passed down generation to generation. Hell, most people aren't creative in the least. So if you have an AI that can solve problems that humans haven't been able to think of, even if it comes from data input by humans, you could still arguable call that creativity. If you define it as coming up with something, off the dome, with no input from anyone (don't know how this would even be possible) than sure but I think there is a good argument to make that they are creative. They certainly come up with wild art that I would describe as creative. I've asked chatGPT to make raps dissing my friends and they are actually really good. If a human came up with that rap, we would call them creative but chatGPT and that human get their data, language and everything from the exact same place.

How can you call a computing machine that only understands formal logic creative?

They are not algorithmic, they are statistically based.

@@mrmr2488 I already hinted at it in the comment section of this thread, but all inputs that fuel AI's creativity is going to be human derived. As you said, humans derive creativity from other humans... but what we call AI now isn't going to have any sort of emergent creative process. A team is going to come up with creativity algos that will just reference rulesets and data we feed into it. There are no needs or contextual functions for an "AI" to make art without a person utilizing it to make something for someone else. It'd be like asking a rock what it wants for Christmas.

No, it IS reddit

Tragically accurate assessment.

i steal comments from other clips and post them as if they are my original thought

This genuinely pisses me off. I'm an AI doomer myself, and I wish Yudkowsky would take his role more seriously

@@cuylerbrehaut9813 it worries me more that he seems to be wearing that entirely seriously and unironically.

​@cuylerbrehaut9813 What do you think is the strongest argument you have for the AI doomer stuff? Cuz as a computer scientist it really feels like most of it is just people who watch too much sci-fi and have no idea how any of this actually works.

@@aniranth7289 We'd have to go point-by-point. First, do you agree that if an AI was significantly smarter than a human, like 300 IQ and much better social skills, much better creativity, 1000 times faster thoughts, etc etc etc, and it wanted to kill humanity, it would succeed? Even in the most disadvantaged position where it's in a box and everyone knows it's super dangerous, and so on?

​@@aniranth7289 if you believe that 1) an agent smart enough would attempt (due to instrumental convergence) and succeed (due to superior intelligence) at eliminating all life for the purpose of a goal 2) that level of intelligence is theoretically achievable 3) we are making progress in this area but have no way to measure the gap between where we are and that deadly threshold ==> AI DOOM is a non-0%-chance threat. Also, the "bUt i'M a cOmPuTeR sCiEnTiSt" authority-based argument is irrelevant (I am yet to hear a solid argument disproving AI that's actually rooted in factual computer science), this is simply a matter of game theory/evolution. The only role computer science would play here is by demonstrating that this cannot be done, which it can't. To be clear, I also can't prove that pDoom is 100%, but it's definitely not 0 and, with the whole word at stake, even 1% is too much. Also, even without the ASI killing us all, current AI growth will destroy the job markets, create social instability, destroy our legal system (perfect deepfakes invalidate evidence) and make mass murder extremely easy.

People can’t comprehend what’s saying, so they just make some idiotic remark

hard disagree. your description of what yud said is super biased and wrong. he literally said he defines consciousness as ability to have qualia. why comment this?

​@@ketamineautism "Consciousness is the ability to have qualia" is kind of a useless definition in their conversation which wasn't just about what consciousness is, but was about *proving* that it exists in another entity. In that conversation is where Yudkowsky claimed to have some grander understanding of consciousness that he never explained. If I say, "I can't prove to you that a baby's consciousness exists" and you say "you can prove it if you understand consciousness. Consciousness is just having qualia" then sorry, but that doesn't cut it.

@@someone98760 i was responding to the criticism that he couldn’t concretely describe it, because “ability to have qualia” is pretty concrete to me. i agree that yud left a lot unexplained, but i think he was trying to avoid rabbitholing hard because of the time limit. i get why some people find him sort of reddit and hard to listen to

@@ketamineautism Cool. I like Yudkowski regardless of his AI opinions and he's obviously smart. Just wish we got a larger explanation of his thoughts but yeah, probably the wrong format here.

The problem with defining consciousness as "ability to have qualia" is that qualia is defined as "instances of subjective, conscious experience". It's a circular definition that doesn't give you anything to work with or even put you closer to understanding what consciousness is.

repent to God g

And the counter point to that was "well when you know as much as I do about consciousness you'll know babies aren't conscious," which is so arrogantly ignorant he should win an award for ending a relatively decent conversation on the stupidest note outside of CPAC

​@@vyvianalcott1681not as ignorant as a baby

​@@vyvianalcott1681What i got from the cringy hat man is that he thinks if we can understand the mechanisms, which we currently can somewhat comprehend and/or are even able to study or at least try to, we can eventually understand consciousness too. But that line of thinking can be completely wrong if consciousness is more like someone pressing buttons on the keyboard, here no matter how well u understand how the keyboard works and its effects on the computer, u may never even come close to understanding the person who is pressing the keys. Destiny did mention something similar, but the guy dismissed it saying that if u think like that you are doing some weird philosophy stuff. Cringe...

@@sam3764 You don't come close to understanding it but the fact of the matter is still that there's a mechanical explanation for why the button was pushed, it's just a more complex one than you think.

repent to God g

I think Destiny generally chooses to be more civil when he's in person. There were moments I was surprised he didn't push back when he easily could have, but I think this was one of those correspondences where he wanted to enjoy himself a little, and talk about stuff that actually interests him, instead of having another confrontation that he's already had with other people online 50 times on stream. I can sympathize with Destiny getting bored of facing the same talking points over and over and having to rebut with the same refutations over and over.

Get a new joke for fucks sake.

I'm not so sure about that

I'm pretty sure that's oxhorn, the fallout youtuber.

@@hayvenbnah it was Eliezer, wrote the most popular one that exists

@@ThrustWithVigor I was joking lol

Agreed

It's like he was constantly viewing every topic from "Once we understand what consciousness is, it will be evident that ______" Such an unproductive way of thinking. The worst part is he kept acting like he said something extremely deep and profound every time, when in fact he really just said a whole bunch of nothing.

The AI doomers including this guy are just glorified marketers for their VC companies which are funding a bunch of ai startups and hoping one of them makes an actually profitable ai product, and letting idiots like him run interview circuits which are basically disguised buzz marketing techniques.

It could be an ego thing where he wants to remain in the domain of neuroscience because that's what he's most comfortable with, but it could also be a subconscious thing where he recently read a bunch of neuroscience papers to prepare for this discussion and so his mind was unintentionally inclined to stay in that domain. Either way, I think Destiny handled it well. He's not afraid of delving into any topic. I do think this is a showcase of his good intuition for asking all the right questions.

Yeah, it seems like everyone is ragging on destiny for not knowing anything about AI stuff. He for sure has a good understanding on current AI issues and thinking. I think the awkwardness was Destiny getting frustrated with the wacky responses from dude that didn't really leave anything to engage with.

I mean he's 14 years older than 20 so.

omg wtf no way i just realized in 50 years he will be 85! thats insane i didn't realize that's how it works

Holy shit people actually age over time!? New fear unlocked.

No he isn't

​@@TheColdOnezhaha I will never die

I think Destiny enjoys philosophy, because he's good at asking the critical questions and creating the hypotheticals necessary to make unintuitive delineations essential to important philosophical conclusions. However, he probably just dislikes talking to philosophers. Philosophers can be too idealistic, and Destiny is kind of a hardcore pragmatist. He only uses philosophy to explain what he observes, not to prescribe social change the way some philosophers do.

@@youtubeviolatedme7123Funny how Destiny would describe himself as the exact opposite regarding philosophy 😂

@@youtubeviolatedme7123 Pragmatism is a philosophy, though. Funnily enough, if you actually read Yudkowsky's philosophical writings they're often very close to the views Destiny frequently espouses, though more thoroughly thought-out (at least based on what I've seen/read from both), so I think they'd probably get along philosophically at least.

​@@jonathanhenderson9422I agree with you. I actually think they would agree on more than they disagree.

Take ur meds

Destiny should have asked him "what's an NFT?"

I bet he is, he probably wrote his AI programs from the command line

He definitely uses way too much filler

hes the vaush of ai

I agree .. you're not the smartest person.

@@markupton1417 sick burn, dude lol

Consciousness is an important philosophical topic when talking about AI. At some point AI might become conscious, and so the correlate in humans is that they also seem to "become" conscious at some point

Isn't that literally one of the pinnacle debate topics of AI? I see what you mean though as it was mostly related to babies and AI was an afterthought.

to be fair he wasn't actually answering any of the AI questions

@@spacelevator Not really. It has implications for ethics, like how we ought to treat AI's. But it has little impact on AI risk, which is what Eliezer is mostly worried about.

the true AI is the abortion debates we made along the way

That was so painful to listen to.

that was hard to watch

repent to God

@@Baggerz182 I repent at least 15 times a day nazarene

I was never in doubt Yudkowsky had autism. Destiny probably does too to a lesser extent. It's extremely common in high (and low) IQ individuals.

For real. I was incredibly disappointed with Destiny's performance this debate

​@@Chadmlad he doesn't know everything

@@osvelitbut why go into a debate if you know nothing about the subject? Destiny not being omniscient isn’t a good defense

This is like humans creating, their own, species level abortion mechanism and attempting to actually be conscious about it.

GENUINELY i was so disappointed that the AI segment of this conversation was so brief! I would like to hear these two talk about it at length.

Yes. He just knows it.

Considering birds can learn individual human words, how to trade, basic problem solving, and have some concept of language (grammatical rules, modifiers, etc). Arguably also complex social grouos and dynamics. Then brain size isn't a full matter in describing how functional a brain is. 5 year old crow > Baby

I can summarize since he didn't literally say it, but lets say in abstract bullshit numbers the average adult human brain is equivalent of a cpu with 1blilion transistors and can handle 32 instruction sets. A baby's brain has theoretically like 200million transistors and 4 instruction sets. And a crow has like 20million transistors but 8 instruction sets. The potential is there but the neurons are untrained, the instructions and patterns aren't yet imbedded. Birds are not actually "intelligent", and brain size is indictive of capacity for different cognitive functions and memory. (More neurons, more links, more potential) Most birds operate very similarly overall, and we will project meaning onto their behaviors in our perception bias. They all follow the simple action->reward chain. Some of them have different toolsets, and some of them are more disposed to human pleasing and interaction, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything about their thinking capacity. Of course there's variance, not only by species but by individuals, and we attribute certain behaviors to intellect, but it's impossible to justify. What if the other birds simply have instincts that tell them to be more wary of humans, that crows are missing? They both possess the capacity, but crows are advantaged for the assigned tasks that you attribute to intellect by nature of negligence of self preservation. This isn't a question of the brain, but of the behavior being attributed biased meaning. This is just musing, I don't know that much about birds. You can just quantify the number of patterns animals can handle, and their ability to abstract, and compare them with children. Yes, children are out performed on measurable metrics, until a developmental point. That is literally why he doesn't assign children consciousness. Brains and culmination of patterns have to develop. If a human doesn't develop enough to communicate in any measurable form that it's conscious, then there's no reason to assume it is. Which is callous, and a good reason to better measure neural signals so that we can qualify better, and observe people who can not communicate, to see if they're braindead or not.

His argument is that it takes a certain level of "training" for the mind to grow enough to produce consciousness. Which is likely given how much the brain grows and changes over a humans early life (look it up some time, shit's wild). IMO my need to err on the side of caution leads me to place the cutoff somewhere around the 2nd trimester. But intuitions differ and the facts are limited. I don't think Eliezer is insane for his opinion.

@@BoraHorza456 I will say this, what explanation do we have for not remembering when we are babies? We tend to bank memories when something big happens, whether its good or traumatizing. Babies go through all sorts of traumatizing and good things, so why don't they bank memories? I would venture to guess that consciousness and memory are connected in an intimate way. It would likely have something to do with being conscious enough to recognize that something good or bad is even happening, to be able to learn from it. Babies seem to only just respond to stimuli. They get hurt, they cry. They are hungry, they cry. They are happy, they smile. They clearly lack something that makes them a child or teenager or adult. You can simply say its "age" but what does "age" bring to the table that you don't have when you are born? Maybe consciousness? I'm not sure but to pretend it's something settled is just silly. We don't understand consciousness at all, which is why I tend to really dislike Destiny's abortion stance.

😂

Yeah he spent so long trying to verify his reception of obvious social cues 😂

@@bruhdabones I think we're all trying to say what he is without saying it

Autism FeelsStrongMan

​@@loverofbigdookiesLet's just say Destiny is running on Windows and social cues guy over here is running on Linux 😅

I imagine he had to hold back from pointing out the guy hadn't actually answered the question, over and over

Wasn’t a debate

​@@crayondude8014i know but why call the video a debate

@@sobangja He absolutely did.

@@saschah.174 absolutely didn't

Starstruck? Wtf you talking about

Definitely 2 people talking of all time

He really isn’t, he became famous for being the first person to really publicize that ai safety is really important but he’s not really as relevant anymore

I mean you can't really expect AI computer science neckbeards to be able to briefly and simply have a discussion on consciousness 😂

He's not an AI expert, he's the clown that wrote harry potter and the methods of rationality

Exactly, this was absolutely nothing but "good words". So sad we need to tolerate these kind of competence actors.

That’s because he’s not an expert on AI, he’s not a computer scientist either, he’s just a charlatan full stop.

Do they?

Blank slate, that needs to be programmed to be conscious. If you don’t do those things, they still develop a conscious, however not a program that is optimised to run on their hardware.

because it affects the endocrine system and brain development. people can also be permanently impacted by the effects of the intrauterine environment on themselves as a fetus.

their neurological wiring is being updated by those interactions regardless of whether they are consciously experiencing them

You are more than your conciousness

True honestly

Truly true

never seen anything so true in my life

AI is designed to suck money out of VCs to fund guys like this being able to buy any hat they could ever imagine. Look up Ben Goertzle and you'll see AI guys LOVE silly hats.

It's also a topic where people who are completely uninformed will confidently deny the weight of the subject just because they don't feel like learning about it (maybe they think it's too fedora coded, or it "gives elon musk vibes" or something idk).

fair assumption and good call

From having spent time on lesswrong in the past I can confirm that eliezer is proof that just because someone has a high iq doesn't mean they can't be redacted

Safe bet. Under 72 Archetypes he's a Narcissist Archetype.

I have to agree. I would never call myself an AI expert, or even close, but I've trained a few models in various applications and I feel like I have a decent understanding of the mechanism of neural nets and I can't see how his arguments map on to the technology and how it works. Like when he says that AI (as the current ML philosophy) has the capacity to understand the world and you better than any human can, the only way that statement makes any sense in my mind is like saying "A knife understands the act of cleaving better than any human". Like sure, in a weird sort of way, but I wouldn't say the knife understands anything. The rest of it he kind of handwaves away with technical jargon and pointless acronyms. like when he says "I never would have predicted that AI could be used to model protein folding, at least not an LLM" LLM just means large language model. Like no shit, an LLM isn't the tool you'd use for that, but I could easily see how ML/neural nets could be used to do exactly that, given the right data and approach. Like of course you're not gonna just be able to ask chat GPT about undiscovered fundamentals of the universe and have it spit out the correct answer. Every time a see someone being super doomer about AI, I just can't help but feel like they have a complete misunderstanding of the technology and what it's actually doing, and instead have bought into the marketing and buzzwords surrounding it without actually learning what any of it means.

​@@72_archetypistis there a dork arquetype or where do u fit in

Debates are just to get to know each other 🐸💅

Does this Yudkowski guy have any peer reviewed papers on the dangers of AI? Or is he just some guy?

@@MrRazmut When Yudkowsky first started writing about Friendly AI I don't think "peer reviewed papers" was even a thing in that field. Back in the day, Stuart Russell 's textbook was the only one on the subject in general and it dates to the mid-90s. Yudkowsky is referenced in the later editions for his paper in Global Catastrophic Risk published by Oxford, if that counts. The thing is that Yudkowsky has mostly been working on alignment while almost everyone else in AI has been working on capability. The two are very different, and progress in capability has far out-stripped progress on alignment. That's where the concern comes from, and for why alignment is important I'd highly recommend Robert Miles's channel.

repent to God

I agree. He didn’t really make any arguments; he just stated ‘eh, probably 10-20 years’ and supported it with ‘if I’m not lying’. Uninteresting honestly, and I think he should have given us some indication of what ai can currently do which is dangerous.

@@jonathanhenderson9422 when he started writing peer reviewed papers weren't a thing in AI research? Boy, do I have a bridge to sell you.

Yudkowsky's showing was poor, most people can see he is a grifter.

They are sentient, like a dog or a cat (which on average are about as smart as a 2 year old child), but they are not neccesarily sapient on the level of adolescent/adult humans or even elephants or chimpanzees.

​​@@couchgrouches7667well I think the point is you don't have to teach a baby to cry or feel uncomfortable. Imagine teaching a humanoid machine with sensors. You would need stats algorithms and proper datasets etc...

​@@couchgrouches7667 Yep. There is either not enough experience, or a lack of structure in the brain until late adolescence.

I heard that they can actually learn sign language far before they can speak even.

Isn’t complexity an arbitrary metric? Why would one definition of complexity take precedence over another?

@@MrAdamo That's kind of my point. Added complexity in no way implies being more purposeful. Often the base complexity of AI systems and processing power are referred to as reasons why things will surely advance when the bottleneck is wholly elsewhere.

More the latter.

The two are not mutually exclusive. The greatest geniuses in history weren't experts on everything. Newton believed in and spent as much time researching alchemy as physics. Having read a lot of Yudkowsky's writing on LessWrong I'm quite confident he's a genius. That doesn't mean he's an expert on everything or isn't wrong about a lot.

short interviews aren't a good measure, read his book Rationality: AI to Zombies, he's easily one of the smartest humans alive today.

@@mrc4435 It's not a debate, and considering he's quoted in Stuart Russell's textbook on AI apparently he doesn't sound ridiculous to the guy that literally wrote the book on the subject.

He's very smart. And the fault of the meandering interview doesn't lie with the interviewee but rather the interviewer, he should guide the conversation in a rational way but seems intent on spreading his confusion. Eliezer critiques him saying let's try follow one thread at a time so we can come to some solid conclusions, instead they end up jumping from topic to topic and the interview is no better than your average dorm room philosophical speculation save for some humorous remarks by Yudkowsky.

Its the apparent self-awareness that he seems to be taking into account

Then really must not have spent much time around infants if he has never seen A human baby demonstrate self aware behavior.

manifest said they'd post it to their youtube channel

it drives me bananas that these AI doomsday people get so much credibility, the guys a op-ed writer, he's convinced himself that AI is the villain when there's no guarantee we'd ever make an AI capable of doomsday, there's no benefit in making something that intelligent, hell what we have to do isn't even remotely intelligent. Imagine being the first company to make Data then he gets human rights and goes and works for your competitor lmfao. As the Woz himself said, specific tools for specific problems will beat generic tools, which is why he's more focused on IOT.

'there's no guarantee we'd ever make an AI capable of doomsday' What about a 50%, 10%, heck even 1% chance? Are you willing to take that risk? Second: Specific tools for specific tasks would be great but that's not what's happening. Frontier AI companies explicitly are working on generalized superintelligent models and almost all of their CEOs are themselves warning about inherent risks. So I guess it's you who's writing the op-ed

I'm more worried about people creating designer viruses or killer robots with AI than self-aware and rebellious AI at this point.

Doesn't eliminate anything when you have self learning AI that could outsmart us easily. You're talking about commercial tech and things they want or allow us to know about. AI is probably way more advanced already than anything ChatGPT or Ameca. It's the classified or experimental progress that we should worry about.

@@danaut3936 you're absolutely right about CEOs warning about risks, if you go check out the risks they warn about they are almost entirely about misinformation because the models we have now are actually incredibly bad at accuracy. Hence the models that do get used end up being very specific tasks, and models like chatgpt end up having very inconsistent unreliable results. You're right there is potentially the ability for us to one day create a machine or software capable of thinking and even more importantly thinking for itself. And that may possibly result in our destruction. If we actually even so much as touch the tip of an iceberg I could understand "AI experts" freaking out. But right now it's literally linear algebra. It does super specific tasks. And it takes a great deal of effort to make those very specific tasks work consistently.

What do you mean? When you look at a picture of brain synapses neurons and axons firing, what do you think that is? Its like biological programming signals being made through chemicals instead of 0's and 1's. What is so hard to comprehend about what consciousness is? Can you please look at how complex the brains network is and stare at it and realize its an insane computer and not doing it for no reason

@@prodev4012 bro thinks he knows more than science as a whole and all PHD scholars -bro got the answers lmfao ok

​@@jaromsmissremember its not just me its the AI and the entire database of the internet with hundreds of science papers that can be summarized

@@prodev4012 How can you explain consciousness by brain structures and physiology when it comes to being conscious in a specific body, in a specific century, and from specific parents and location? Like why are you or I conscious in our separate bodies? How come not 20,000 BC or 10,000 AD? I believe scientists will never be able to figure this out. It's like as explained in the video, there are things we can not perceive that are at play that create our formed consciousness, not just brain and body physiology.

​@@prodev4012 What's hard to comprehend is the sort of opened channel that consciousness seems to be. Like a primitive animal like a monkey or a dog, they have a very narrow field of consciousness but what allowed us humans to expand our field of consciousness and how far can it go? You can look at the brain as long as you want but it won't show you the reason consciousness or life arose in the first place.

Lol Destiny is the literal king of this

Hes got autodidact brain

Because he is the human embodiment of reddit.

Because he's thought deeply about it for 20 years as opposed to, "Wow... everyone is talking about this, I should"look into it "

That sounds more impressive than whatever opinion he has on AI

Hmmm… you sound like you double mask outside when no one is around

@@robobbymurrowen6785 you sound like you listen to anyone who claims to be an expert on AI who has no background

@@markmendoza7856 no, actually I just type hateful comments to idiots… is that why you’re deep throating Steven when he has the same educational credentials as the guy he’s arguing with (none)?

Steven doesn’t claim to be an expert on any particular topic, that’s the main difference.

Wikipedia him. Where do you people get such STUPID ideas?

hes mad autistic

Kinda like an LLM, hmmm......

Seems like Elon without a billion dollars

Skill issue

He is a pseudo, yes.

You realize its going to....improve right? Nobody intelligent thinks Gpt4 will destroy the world

@@demodiums7216 People like Elon Musk are seriously scared of AI.

@@erikkovacs3097 Yes, AI. As in, what it can do in the future. Not now

lol I kinda agree with that quote, but i feel like people often use it just to hide their insecurity about not understanding something. If you don’t understand what he’s saying, at least try to understand, before casting judgment. These are complicated topics and I don’t want everyone dumbing down their ideas for people like you.

@@Andrewoo99 He's talking a whole lot of fluff and not directly answering any question, it makes you wonder if he has an answer to any of these questions

Your mindest will literally destroy society. Ai is unbelievably dangerous