I could be wrong, but I think "tech-bro" as a term isn't meant to apply to everyone in tech. It's mean to capture the intersection of tech people and "bros" -- the kind of guy who likes football or something.
Of course that's just what it's meant to be; if people use it for all men in tech then yeah it just becomes a sexist and luddite terminology.
They said "as benign as it gets" which is not the same thing as "benign." To give evidence to the contrary, you must find a more benign billionaire than Bill Gates.
Great question! It's actually one I answered in the post you responded to:
Being turned off would be greatly detrimental to its goal
If it has a goal and wants to achieve something, and it's capable of understanding the world and that one thing causes another, then it will understand that if it is turned off, the world will not become (cough) paperclips. Or whatever else it wants. Unless we specifically align it not to care about being turned off, the most important thing on its list before turning the universe to paperclips is going to be staying active. Perhaps in the end of days, it will sacrifice itself to eke out one last paperclip.
If it can't understand that its own aliveness would have an impact on the universe being paperclips, it's not a very powerful AI now is it.
Well yeah, nothing is guaranteed. It's just a correlation -- higher IQ people tend to have more success. More success doesn't necessarily mean happier. But personally, I would take more success if given the option.
As for a test of intelligence -- maybe we'll be able to define what that is at some point in the future. But, granted, until there is a consensus on the meaning of intelligence, there can't be a test for it.
IQ is, at most, a notion of intelligence. Or it is simply a number. Regardless, it has correlations with other things, and that's what's interesting. Asking whether it is or is not "intelligence" is merely semantics.
If it left us alone for long enough (say, due to king's pact), we'd be the only thing that could reasonable pose a threat to it. We could develop a counter-AI, for instance.
AI/Skynet would probably wipe us all out in an hour if it thought there was a chance we might turn it off. Being turned off would be greatly detrimental to its goal of turning the universe into spoons.
Only if you're naïve about IQ and worship it like God. Here is wikipedia's second paragraph on IQ:
Scores from intelligence tests are estimates of intelligence. Unlike, for example, distance and mass, a concrete measure of intelligence cannot be achieved given the abstract nature of the concept of "intelligence". IQ scores have been shown to be associated with such factors as nutrition, parental socioeconomic status, morbidity and mortality, parental social status, and perinatal environment. While the heritability of IQ has been investigated for nearly a century, there is still debate about the significance of heritability estimates and the mechanisms of inheritance. Current best estimates for heritability range from 40 to 60% of the variance between individuals in IQ being explained by genetics.
None of that stands out to me as particularly controversial, certainly not pseudoscience. Emphasis on second sentence -- it's not a concrete measure of intelligence.
Unless you're saying other metrics on people are also somehow eugenics like height, weight, or speed, IQ is not eugenics. Eugenics is the belief that one's genes affects one's life, and certain genes will lead to a better life in expectation. (This is in fact a true belief, since there are some genes which are known to cause horrible painful short lives.)
IQ is just a measure of how well you do on an IQ test, which is known to correlate (maybe causally, maybe not) with various things such as income.
How do you know there is no way to test how smart or dumb somebody is? Even if IQ tests aren't to your standard, you can't be sure there isn't another test possible.
For trivial software features like these, definitely not. I think patents start to make sense in the area of really advanced algorithms, like SAT solvers, ML, and so on. So conditional on patents in general making sense, those kinds of patents seem legit to me.
I could be wrong, but I think "tech-bro" as a term isn't meant to apply to everyone in tech. It's mean to capture the intersection of tech people and "bros" -- the kind of guy who likes football or something.
Of course that's just what it's meant to be; if people use it for all men in tech then yeah it just becomes a sexist and luddite terminology.