zlacker

The methods by which humans coerce and control other humans do not rely on plain intelligence alone. That much is clear, as George Washington and Stalin were not the smartest men in the room.

>>c_cran+(OP)
So this is down to your poor definition of intelligence?

For you, it's always the homework problems that your teacher assigned you in grade school, nothing else is intelligent. What to say to someone to have them be your friend on the playground, that never counted. Where and when to show up (or not), so that the asshole 4 grades above you didn't push you down into the mud... not intelligence. What to wear, what things to concentrate on about your appearance, how to speak, which friendships and romances to pursue, etc.

All just "animal cunning". The only real intelligence is how to work through calculus problem number three.

They were smart enough at these things that they did it without even consciously thinking about it. They were savants at it. I don't think the AI has to be a savant though, it just has to be able to come up with the right answers and responses and quickly enough that it can act on those.

>>NoMore+xd
I don't define cunning and strength as intelligence, even if they are more useful for shoving someone into the mud. Intelligence is a measure of the ability to understand and solve abstract problems, not to be rich and famous.

>>c_cran+ye
Cunning absolutely should count as an aspect of intelligence.

If this is just a definitions issue, s/artificial intelligence/artificial cunning/g to the same effect.

Strength seems somewhat irrelevant either way, given the existence of Windows for Warships[0].

[0] not the real name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_Command_System

>>ben_w+3m
Emotional intelligence is sometimes defined in a way to encapsulate some of the values of cunning. Sometimes it correlates with power, but sometimes it does not. To get power in a human civilization also seems to require a great deal of luck, just due to the general chaotic system that is the world, and a good deal of presence. The decisions that decide the fate of the world happen in the smoky backdoor rooms, not exclusively over zoom calls with an AI generated face.

>>c_cran+to
> The decisions that decide the fate of the world happen in the smoky backdoor rooms, not exclusively over zoom calls with an AI generated face.

Who is Satoshi Nakamoto?

What evidence is there for the physical existence of Jesus?

"Common Sense" by Thomas Paine was initially published anonymously.

This place, here, where you and I are conversing… I don't know who you are, and yet for most of the world, this place is a metaphorical "smokey backroom".

And that's disregarding how effective phishing campaigns are even without a faked face or a faked voice.

>>ben_w+aB
Satoshi Nakamoto is a man who thought that he could upend the entire structure of human governance and economics with his One Neat Trick. Reality is sure to disappoint him and his followers dearly with time.

>What evidence is there for the physical existence of Jesus?

Limited, to the extent that physical evidence for the existence of anyone from that time period is limited. I think it's fairly likely there was a a person named Jesus who lived with the apostles.

>"Common Sense" by Thomas Paine was initially published anonymously.

The publishing of Common Sense was far less impactful on the revolution than the meetings held by members of the future Continental Congress. Common Sense was the justification given by those elites for what they were going to do.

>This place, here, where you and I are conversing… I don't know who you are, and yet for most of the world, this place is a metaphorical "smokey backroom".

No important decisions happen because of discussions here and you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

Phishing campaigns can be effective at siphoning limited amounts of money and embarrassing personal details from people's email accounts. If you suggested that someone could take over the world just via phishing, you'd be rightfully laughed out of the room.

>>c_cran+ye
Yes but for people working past a certain level the abstract problems usually involve people and technology, both of which you need to be able to rationalise about.