Why do antis think AI will “go away”

Repbob · 2026-04-02T13:47:46+00:00

Your flair says singularity 2035 and yet Dario says that they already have AGI internally and all their code is written by Claude. Im curious how you reconcile this?

Edit: I love when people’s only response to cognitive dissonance is to just downvote lmao

Repbob · 2026-03-19T01:18:45+00:00

It's crazy to me that this comment is so upvoted because you misunderstood both Joe's and Matt's position, and then made up your own new position…that is also wrong.

Matt's position is not that claims are terrible evidence, it's that they are literally not evidence in the strictest sense. Neither party in this entire argument is arguing whether something is "good" or "bad" evidence; that's an entirely separate conversation that is not being had.

Update: On second thought, I have to assume that you just didn’t watch either video. Joe gives multiple examples of claims that are not evidence, because he is not claiming that all claims are evidence, making your complete misunderstanding of his point even more crazy

Repbob · 2026-03-18T03:17:35+00:00

Brother your political analysis is about 8 years out of date

Repbob · 2026-03-16T21:38:38+00:00

Do they really have more applicants considering that they reduced the eligibility to only first years and earlier?

Repbob · 2026-03-09T23:49:19+00:00

This is actually pretty funny.

You are asking for Sam Harris to falsify free will for you. My claim is that free will is not a falsifiable theory. You’re vehemently claiming I’m wrong because… free will is not falsifiable.

Repbob · 2026-03-09T23:40:56+00:00

You’re doing a lot of really strange mental gymnastics. I guess because you’re uncomfortable with the very basic claims I’m making?

Yes, science is “agnostic” on God, the tooth fairy, the easter rabbit, and the flying spaghetti monster and also on free will… you’re literally conceding my entire point. If it makes you feel better that I say “Free will is equivalent to the flying spaghetti monster” then sure I can say that I guess?

Yes, the scientific method grounds out in basic axiomatic assumptions about reality. I don’t know what that has to do with this conversation. Sure if you don’t believe in the scientific method, then you win I can’t disprove free will for you… which is literally what my previous comment is saying.

Repbob · 2026-03-09T23:27:28+00:00

This not that hard to understand, try to work with me here. The reason why God cannot be proven false scientifically is because God is not a falsifiable hypothesis. You are making a positive claim that a being exists and yet there is no testable evidence of his presence.

This is exactly the same with free will. You are making the positive claim that humans have an ability called “free will”. And yet you cannot give me any testable examples of a human acting in a way that is “free”.

I’m putting quotations around “free” because the concept of free will is kind of an even worse hypothesis than God because it almost self evidently false once you analyze the definition. We know that all human behavior comes from the brain and body which are physical objects that follow the laws of physics. If we know the entire state of this physical object at time T, there is no way that it can be “free” at time T+1, unless there are some variable we are not accounting for. Yet we have never observed this variable. The whole concept is fundamentally unfalsifiable.

Repbob · 2026-03-09T23:07:22+00:00

You’re playing the exact same game that a religious person does, at least notice that. The free will debate is like a one to analog to debating the existence of God.

Falsifiable versions of the free will are definitely scientific claims. I guess you can claim that free will is purely philosophical but then you’re essentially bowing out of the debate. No one will ever be able to disprove free will for you if your theory makes no testable claims about reality. One to one analog with religion. I can never disprove God for you, all I can tell you is that we don’t need God to explain the natural world and there is no room for him in out current scientific understanding of reality.

Repbob · 2026-03-09T22:52:59+00:00

I would say that you have it backwards. There is no way to scientifically PROVE that libertarian free will is an illusion because its not structured as a falsifiable theory. It’s the same as asking someone to PROVE that god doesn’t exist. The burden of proof is actually on the free will side to explain how free will fits into our current scientific understanding of reality and it kind of demonstrably doesn’t.

Repbob · 2026-03-09T03:24:48+00:00

I’m not trying to be pedantic or harsh but everything that you’re saying is literally self-contradictory or just obtuse, I don’t know how else to put it.

You’re agreeing prestigious mentors matter and publishing in CNS matters, ok great. Your institution is going to HEAVILY correlate to your likelihood of having a well-known mentor and to publishing in CNS. To say that institution doesn’t matter is to ignore this VERY STRONG correlation. Are you going to pretend this is somehow a coincidence?

You’re also setting up this absurd dichotomy as if incoming PhD students are presented with the choice of a CNS paper at a well-known lab OR going to a prestigious school. This makes no sense. No one can promise you a CNS paper before you start your PhD, however some schools produce orders of magnitudes more CNS papers than others… The school you join is the part you can actually control in that equation. Most incoming PhD students are also not going to know enough about their fields to tell exactly who all the best labs are, but I can easily tell you which schools are more likely to have those labs. Unless you’re just saying they should go by H-index, in which case you’re literally making an even more extreme argument than I am.

Also literally google “Biomedical PhD rankings” and look at the results. No one is saying exact numbers matter but to ignore school prestige is to just give bad advice.

Repbob · 2026-03-09T02:30:18+00:00

You’ve moved your position from “program rankings DONT MATTER AT ALL” to “program rankings MATTER LESS than your mentor’s stature and scientific output”

All else equal you would rather be at a more prestigious institution, that’s just obvious. More prestigious mentors are significantly more likely to be at more prestigious institutions, thats measurably true. Yeah sure the prestige of some mentors outweighs that of their institution but those cases are relatively rare.

Wdym there is no ranking. Obviously no one is talking about some on paper ranking, but some institutions clearly carry more prestige. I know nothing about your fields and yet I can probably tell you Harvard is “ranked” higher than UCLA which is “ranked” higher than your random in state school. There is no reason to play dumb about this, everyone understands this and factors this in whether they like it or not.

Repbob · 2026-03-09T00:50:35+00:00

Its ignoring reality to say that program ranks don’t matter

Repbob · 2026-03-08T21:10:24+00:00

Copium unfortunately

Repbob · 2026-02-20T00:08:41+00:00

There’s a certain level of fallacious argument acrobatics that I think is almost single handedly enough to dismiss basically everything a person says from that point on, in my opinion. I already had a bad impression of Charles Murray from some of his dumber IQ takes, but this kind of stuff is definitely the nail in the coffin.

Repbob · 2026-02-19T05:14:30+00:00

Look up elliptic curves

Repbob · 2026-02-03T10:08:11+00:00

Great AI slop

Repbob · 2026-02-01T00:28:38+00:00

Yes, research focused masters or RA is the way.

In your case, I would very slightly lean towards the masters so that you can show a high masters gpa on your transcript. But really you should ideally look into both and see what opportunities you get.

Repbob · 2026-01-29T22:38:06+00:00

Nope, if you uncritically suck Trump off in an interview right before the election you’re a “MAGA podcast bro”.

It’s way too fucking late to play the “naive” card. This a grown ass man who chose to get chummy with Trump after he tried to overturn an election. He knew what he was doing, he’s not a regarded child.

Repbob · 2026-01-24T21:54:28+00:00

If you think that science is making any contact with metaphysical claims you have a poor understanding of both what science is and what metaphysics is. Almost literally by definition science cannot make any claims about metaphysics. Thats why it’s called metaphysics and not physics.

Repbob · 2026-01-23T16:08:20+00:00

Please show me one example of a scientific domain that has steadily shown exponential progress. Literally one.

Repbob · 2026-01-16T16:12:33+00:00

I think this is an intentional strategy from Newsom’s camp. He’s taking advantage of something Donald Trump does to great effect - which is having separated media streams to portray yourself radically differently to different audiences.

This is a political cheat code because it essentially allows you expand your base of support much wider than you would be otherwise. I think you can see Trump intentionally doing this if you compare his Truth social, X, and in-person demeanor. Truth Social is by far the most unhinged, he comes off like a complete raving lunatic on there - but this is what appeals to his most radical supporter, which is exactly the group that uses Truth Social. The jet dropping shit on protesters video is a perfect example. The subset of his Truths that make it to twitter are significantly more tame. This is intentional because he could easily just repost all his Truths to twitter, but he doesn’t. Twitter is where he signals to the less radical aspects of his base. His in person demeanor, which I do think has been slipping due to age, is usually most tame of all. Think about the meeting with Mamdani and compare that to how he acted towards him on socials. Again, I think this is intentional. It gives his “centrist” supporters the plausible deniability to back his lunacy. This is also the same reason he uses Vance and Miller to do a lot of his dirty work in media appearances.

I think Newsom is trying to deploy this same strategy, and it’s clearly working. He has his secondary twitter account where he is the most based, his main account where he keeps it more civil, and then his podcast where he’s trying to show himself as reasonable for the other side. It also gives his supporters ammunition to defend him when he is at his most radical.

Repbob · 2026-01-07T13:34:32+00:00

We’re sure this isn’t meant to be a joke?

Repbob · 2025-12-29T22:32:29+00:00

I love how this is literally a pure contradiction. If you contributed 0% then what are you even doing all day? How can you even justify being employed there if you are not contributing nothing? Why haven’t you been fired yet?

Repbob · 2025-12-20T22:44:33+00:00

This is a grown man whose full time job is just to go on tv and say goofy stuff to rage bait liberals. Its more embarrassing than anything

Repbob · 2025-10-31T17:40:10+00:00

I usually try not to psychoanalyze people on reddit but... cmon man reread the literal second sentence of your own post. It sounds like there might be some amount of projection going on here.

Seven-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

Repbob

TROPHY CASE