The politicians are always talking about killing innocent people via wars, so I don’t see the big difference

Yes, but at least European countries have more than 2 parties, making them more resilient. It also makes it easier to kick the fascists out of power after they got in.

Fascism is very much growing in Europe as well, but the situation is not as dire.

Yes I know degrowth isn’t about population, that’s what I said?

But if population naturally declines, I really don’t think it’s a good idea to try to reverse that trend. Less people means less resources consumed, and better quality of life for those children. Prioritize the people already alive over those that aren’t born. We have more than enough people in the world, and a lot of those people’s potential is not fully reached due to inequality.

Degrowth isn’t just about population, or even about it at all. Degrowth is about doing the opposite of what capitalism forces us to do, infinite growth on a finite planet.

But also, the last thing we should do is incentivize birthing more people. We have increasing amounts of automation technologies, we don’t need more people.

Of course it’s assuming that’s how advanced propulsion tech works. But it is useful to try to detect, just in case that’s how it actually turns out to work, no?

And if we detect something interesting, like a potential warp bubble collapse, well, that also gives us a strong hint that it’s possible, helping us to direct research in the right path.

Detecting techno-signatures of aliens would be super useful for us.

Yee, you’re mot going to be hurt by open sourcing your game 5 or 10 years later. By that time practically nobody will buy your game anymore. And of the ones who still will,.they likely aren’t the ones that would even bother with looking for alternatives other than a big sale on a store page

But then, open sourcing adds to human culture, it lets others modify the game, or use it as a foundation for something new. And those things will credit you, and you will still get some extra benefit/good pr.

It’s just a good thing to do, imo.

Which makes the difference between the AIs and humans lower, likely increasing the significance of the result.

While I agree it’s a relatively low percentage, not being sure and having people pick effectively randomly is still an interesting result.

The alternative would be for them to never say that gpt-4 is a human, not 50% of the time.