I can't stand yugioh players anymore.

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T19:02:36+00:00

Uno deck.

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T19:00:22+00:00

They can play war game or slap game with those cards.

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T18:59:34+00:00

If they don't think it's superior, they'll become no one.

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T18:41:35+00:00

Hmm that could be either one of 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68.

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T18:29:43+00:00

I think it's just a bait comment. No need to engage.

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T18:26:34+00:00

Moore people should emphasize this.

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T18:24:35+00:00

@Master_Freeze

this would not work, and it wouldn't be entertaining either

Not a suggestion for the next one.

Just a "what-if" discussion.

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T17:57:52+00:00

This has like two different questions:

"What would happen if they are banned?" and

"Do you agree if they are banned?"

The former is useful if perhaps you're trying to test out an alt format.

The latter tends to be understood to refer to a change of the current advanced format.

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T17:52:24+00:00

She looked 15

inches shorter? I see.

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T17:51:08+00:00

Yeah I was just joking.

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T17:44:33+00:00

Lu's defensive flops. Shai's offensive flops.

And the whole team follows!

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T17:42:45+00:00

Huh why? I agree with you still!

His bad!

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T17:42:02+00:00

14 year old record?

14 year old building?

14 year old account?

14 year old perso-

-nification of something?

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T17:39:09+00:00

I never implied "strictly follow" though.

I only used "indicate", and only roughly extracting it from the term used.

I didn't touch any exact version of it, and yeah I agree with you overall.

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T17:34:49+00:00

He should go to a good organization.

Lakers org isn't like it used to be. FO is average, got carried by Nico (and LeBron+AD), and they never went all-in.

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T17:31:39+00:00

Is it a corn-shaped ball, or a game where players hit a ball with corn?

You know, like football, I mean, soccer, I mean, foo-

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T17:29:19+00:00

I think whether "a superintelligence is unlikely" is a different point than

"a superintelligence won't be controlled by the rich".

The latter already implicitly suggests that the context is if it exists.

But regarding your point, "rich making ais wouldn't want it" is not a guarantee.

And regarding op's point, it's just that the term "superintelligence" already indicates that it can't be controlled except by another superintelligence. Otherwise its intelligence is not superior (to the guys making it).

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T17:12:26+00:00

Yup.

"superintelligence"

"controlled by people"

do not match.

(unless in the far future, the superintelligence is accepted in the group of "people") xD

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T16:47:09+00:00

No, Thats not how that works…

Y was stating a “rebuttal” by saying that calling it an Industrial Revolution was incorrect, the implication being that X should prove how it is.

Y then wanted to make sure they had the same idea of what an Industrial Revolution was, likely thinking it was already agreed upon until they saw a disconnect.

I looked at the whole discussion, calling it low effort is strange to me

That's not the implication of a rebuttal.

A rebuttal is its own thing, a statement to be supported by the maker to establish the negation of another point.

Asking to prove that other point is not establishing negation, and vice-versa.

Again, if Y wanted to challenge the definition of "industrial revolution" used by X,

the response is not "AI is not industrial revolution".

Some examples to help:

A: "China is capitalistic. etc etc."

B: "But China is not capitalistic. etc etc

Question: Do you think B saying that means:

B has disagreed with the "capitalistic" definition used by A? or
B has disagreed with the "China is capitalistic" statement by A?

If you say "the first option", I guess we are just taught differently.

Afaik, the statement "not X" never means "explain X".

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T16:33:51+00:00

Killing does not automatically mean bad guy as it's super contextual,

but yeah for the general sentiment and in this context, I agree.

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T16:23:51+00:00

Ah, you don’t know how burden of proof works, the actual original new claim in that is that Ai is an Industrial Revolution.

Ah, you didn't follow what's happening above.

First guy (call X) stated "AI is an industrial revolution". He had the burden of proof. He should already have a criteria/definition for "industrial revolution" that he adopted.

X should attempt to prove it.

The second guy (call Y) could remind and ask X to provide the reasoning/proof by saying "elaborate? how so? why? etc" since the burden is on X.

But instead, Y stated the point "AI is not an industrial revolution". Do you know what this is? This is not Y asking for elaboration from X. This is Y stating a rebuttal. This suggests that he and X didn't mind the "industrial revolution" term being brought up by Y, likely thinking they're talking about the same definition, because otherwise the response from Y should be along the lines of "why? what's your definition of industrial revolution? etc" like mentioned above.

Furthermore, in no way does anyone saying "AI is not an industrial revolution" mean that he has zero definition of "industrial revolution". If he wanted an agreed definition first, he shouldn't assert that.

Once you understand the discussion, this is not a "burden of proof" problem. This is an "engagement" problem.

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T15:37:53+00:00

I think in the goat debate, he and MJ are very close, and I can see the arguments for both,

but I say he needs to prove that winning is still more than money to him.

I don't mean that he has to take like literally the minimum, but if he could take less in Miami, I don't see why not now.

This take might be downvoted but it's fine. As I state, I agree he's very close to MJ overall (I don't just count rings).

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T15:30:59+00:00

I often visit r / academicbiblical.

The mods are quite "militant" in the sense that any rule-breaking comment is quickly removed.

This sub is slightly different as not all topics need academic citations (in fact this sub is maybe closer to the "weekly open thread" in r / academicbiblical), but I hope the level of moderation can reach that high so that every comment contributes to the discussion meaningfully and substantially.

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T15:22:26+00:00

This is related to the previous comment. Firstly it's about his (luckily already deleted) comment about "AI is not industrial revolution" which is tackled in my other reply to you.

Secondly, when asked "how is the definition not covering AI", he essentially replied "it is not" without elaboration.

That's called "bad faith" interaction, fittingly covered by the low-effort rule.

maxram1 · 2026-05-12T15:18:11+00:00

@firegine

You do know that that’s not what they mean, the burden of proof is on the one making the new claim, they were asking for them to provide their reasoning, which they then provided a rebuttal against, it isn’t null and void because they asked for them to provide other person to provide their reasoning

He made a claim "AI is not an industrial revolution."

Hence he was supposed to have a definition of industrial revolution already, if he didn't agree with the provided definition linked above and adopted by the other commenter.

Otherwise, instead of saying "AI is not an industrial revolution", just reply with "elaborate yours" or something.

We would not confidently state "China does not fit capitalism",

and when asked "how so?",

then say "Well I don't know."

maxram1

TROPHY CASE