For manslaughter you would need to show it was either in commission of another crime or via negligence.

AI has no initiative, it must be prompted. It does not decide anything.

“Prompting” is somewhat specific to LLMs. It is not the only source of direction for an AI. But fair enough. The AI doesn’t “decide” to make number go up. It just does it. Or to make it LLM-specific, the most probable set of tokens produced by its network are self-instructions for the destruction of humanity.

AI won’t be Skynet/Ultron for the foreseeable future.

How far can you see into the future? AI doesn’t have to be brilliant to destroy us; look how much power and destruction human idiots are capable of. At any rate I was not arguing that we were in the end game, just that it is in fact easy to provide a plausible way that AI could destroy us.

Step 1: AI earns money
Step 2: AI pays people to kill each other

That is probably sufficient, but AIs also have deception, blackmail, threats against family, direct action, and other tools at their disposal.

And I agree with the Count – AI doesn’t have to decide humanity should be destroyed; it just has to decide to make number go up.

Buffalonian bison [that] Buffalonian bison bully [, likewise] bully Buffalonian bison

(Buffalonian is the demonym for residents of Buffalo, NY)

how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?

Simple, if they realise their products aren’t as profitable anymore they will invest more into green energy that is not taxed as heavily.

You’ve answered the opposite of the question that I asked. Which underscores my point – the consumer change drives the producer change, not the other way around.

Inflammation is a normal bodily response to a parasite.

And it is often counter-productive, even fatal. Pay attention to the response that you are getting – people aren’t about to take action; they are going to internally fester.

What inaction?

The inaction of useless discussion. Oh, here’s a meme blaming “corporations” for everything; I can see emissions dropping already.

Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?

Why would it have to be?

It wouldn’t. That’s my point. The list doesn’t matter.

I already said start at the top and work your way down.

As you just pointed out, there is no need for that; we can address the whole problem at once.

A lot of people simply don’t care

Of course, but what about the people who do? What will you encourage them to do?

It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards the root of the problem

It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards organization and action instead of blame.

We’ve already agreed that what needs to happen is carbon taxes, so let’s work toward that.

Well the sentence after that is rather critical. It’s not that 100% of humans have it, so who cares about animals; it’s that we have an enormous highly-scrutinized test population, and in general the impacts are mild to imperceptible. I’m not blowing off this concern; we need to keep studying it in humans and animals (and the results may be different!).

But right now there are scores of critical world issues that can be tangibly addressed. Asking people to make lifestyle changes for possibly zero meaningful impact is actually counterproductive.

While they knowingly have misinformed the end users about the impacts of their products

This is a different point and independent of production quantities. Yes, that should be punished, but that will serve to deter the next corporate coverup, not resolve the ones in the past.

State companies are just as accountable

My point about state companies is that they have completely different levers of control. Yes, they need to change, but how to get them to change is vastly different than a multinational.

we can completely stop using fossil fuels for power generation and travel over land

This is exactly my point – how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?

Who ever said we should just have a stern conversation with them

What I’m pointing out is that vague inflammatory language like “taking on” the big bad 57 companies doesn’t actually suggest any action. Rather it provides an easy scapegoat and excuse for inaction.

The EU for example can impose restrictions, rules and taxes.

100% agree. Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?

I don’t think we’ve disagreed about a single actual action that should be taken, so this basically breaks down to rhetoric. Setting aside the statement’s veracity, do you think saying “80% of emissions come from megacorporations” drives people toward seeking solutions? Does it stimulate discussion about carbon taxes and regulations? Does it make people think about taking more efficient transport or pushing for solar generation in their area (or getting their own panels)?

Or does it encourage people to self-righteously finger-wag and ignore any personal and community responsibility?

That doesn’t really get to the impact of the plastic. Something like 100% of humans have plastic in their blood. It’s there, but mostly it just seems to be inert. There are thousands of problems we are creating that we know are causing widespread extinctions. I’m not opposed to reducing plastic use, but forcing a major inconvenience for dubious results burns a lot of goodwill. That’s why this is a popular wedge issue for the right, even though it mostly affects liberal coastal cities.

It’s nonsense because there’s no way to read what you wrote and think it means anything other than a bunch of for-profit corporations are actually emitting that much CO2e. In reality they are just a link in the supply chain, and direct individual use is actually a huge part of emissions (making up the majority when indirect individual use is considered).

1. State “companies” should be treated differently because they have different structures, motivations, scope, and controls
2. It is not useful to focus on oil conglomerates because they are basically interchangeable. What is the behavior change you want from them? To all stop existing? To raise prices to discourage use? To collude into providing some correct amount of their product?

How do you imagine one would “take on” a corporation? “Hey Exxon, you’re bad for selling me gasoline. Stop doing that!”. If you think we should take them on by buying as little from them as possible, then I guess we agree there.

It can be difficult to control the incidence of a tax, but a carbon dividend should overall have a highly progressive effect.

“Jobs” are not a finite resource. That’s just the broken window fallacy with a dash of bigotry.

Or from a macro-economic view, since immigrants are also consumers, studies typically show that immigrants increase aggregate demand for jobs more than they increase aggregate supply.

the handful of megacorporations emitting 80% of all green house gases

That’s just nonsense.

1. The top two providers in that list are the governments of USSR and China. They are not “megacorporations”
2. It not a list of “emitters”. These entities are just “linked to” the emissions – i.e. they provided the fuel that someone else burned.

It’s completely ridiculous to say that it doesn’t matter that someone burns 1,000 gallons of fuel a day because a big company sold it to them.

Targetting individuals people or companies is useless. There’s over a billion co-contributers, not a handful. Systematic changes like a carbon tax are necessary.

We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be

– Kurt Vonnegut

Well there’s some stuff on his Connextras

That’s why ~Everything is Securities Fraud~

I’d argue that Infinite Jest is more relevant than ever. Perhaps its boring how much his prescient world resembles our own, with its everlasting entertainment feeds, overwhelming sponsorship of every aspect of life, nuclear proliferation, quiet desperation, and quieter hope.

The out-of-order telling definitely obscures the plot(s), but they are there. And like many of the author’s choices, this structure stands in stark contrast to an LLM’s output. While an LLM always outputs the most likely next token, Infinite Jest refuses to be predictable. While a slop feeder just slurps whatever shows up in the trough, a Jest reader cannot idly consume, but must actively interact to receive any fulfillment.

Far from wankish performatism, the book deals with heavy themes including depression, drug addiction/recovery, and suicide. These were sadly demonstrated to be very personally familiar themes to the author.

And it’s an interesting, colorful world with bits that just stick with you, from “cartographic rearrangement” to the game of eschaton, to those crazy French Canadians jumping tracks at the last moment (and their leader chosen because he timed his jump so perfectly he lost his legs but lived).

I’m not sure the juice is worth the squeeze, and wouldn’t recommend it to someone who doesn’t want to read an esoteric 1000-page tome with chapter-long endnotes-of-endnotes-of-endnotes. But those who labor to crack this pomegranate will still enjoy many a plump pip.