🤦🏼‍♀️ Good catch 100 hz

100mhz ultrawide LG at 1080x2560. It's not always at ultra for everything. But it still crunches polygons.

Own one and I keep trying to justify the upgrade but without ray tracing it can still crank out a lot of games on ultra. And quite realistically ray tracing quality in games hasn't justified the cost.

Is that the same or different from the only putting on one pitot tube fiasco? Or the rollover issue that downed planes randomly around 9/11 and everyone thought we were under attack again? I'm losing track at this point.

The laws of physics are no less or more applicable to our own biology in terms of complexity, density, scale, and information capacity and in most ways is far less efficient and accurate than their silicon counterparts.

There is nothing to suggest the growth in computer intelligence is going to stop occurring or it's doing anything but just getting started.

Holy wall of unparagraphed word salad, Again you are not understanding what is and isn't an evolutionary process, a disease can wipe out half a species and that is considered a process of evolution. You don't have to be intelligent about it, all you have to do is continue to increase complexity due to an external force and that is it. That's all that is needed to have an evolutionary force.

With computers we don't have to know what we are doing (to recreate consciousness), we just have to select for better more complex systems (the same way evolution did for humans) which is the inevitable result of progress. Do you think computers are going to stop improving? The road maps for chip architecture for the next ten years doesn't seem to suggest it's slowing down yet.

And like the fractalization of coastlines, facts, knowledge and data are completely unlimited, the deeper you look the more there is.

On top of all of this you have the fact that progress has constantly been accelerating in a way that human intelligence is incapable of percieving accurately.

Therefore computer intelligence is vastly going to outpace or own. And very soon too.

As I said that answer seems incredibly arrogant in the face of evolutionary pressure and logarithmic growth.

You can compare human intelligence to centuries ago on a simple linear scale. Neural density has not increased by any stretch of the imagination in the way that transistor density has. But I'm not just talking density I'm talking about scalability that is infinite. Infinite scale of knowledge and data.

Let's face it people are already not that intelligent, we are smart enough to use the technology of other smarter people. And then there are computers, they are growing intelligently with an artificial evolutionary pressure being exerted on their development, and you're telling me that that's not going to continue to surpass us in every way? There is very little to stop computers from being intelligent on a galactic scale.

I have a counter argument. From an evolutionary standpoint, if you keep doubling computer capacity exponentially isn't it extraordinarily arrogant of humans to assume that their evolutionarily stagnant brains will remain relevant for much longer?

Wtf are you on about now? I'm just trying to help you understand something. Seems like you have an agenda.

That's why it was largely performative, to avoid the label of terrorism, but yes. A revolutionary threat might also be a label one could use, depending on how you want to look at it.

That's the thing about a threat, it doesn't have to lead to violence, but it is the performative act of violence. And the commitment to do violence or at least suffer the consequences, in this case arrest. That's what this was. You can understand it or not.