[blueprint]

no, you missed some of my sentences. you have to take the whole picture together. and I was not making an argument to you to prove the existence of the truth. You are clearly bent on arguing against its existence, which tells me enough about you. We were talking about agents that operate in good faith that know that they are safe. When you're ready to have a discussion in good faith rather than attempting to find counterarguments, then you will find that what I said is verifiable. The question is not whether you think you can come up with a way to make an argument that sounds like it contradicts what I said.

The question is not whether an AGI knows that it is an AGI. The question is whether it knows that it is not one. And you're missing the fact that there's no such thing as it here.

If you go around acting hostile to good people that's still not very intelligent. In fact, I would question if you have any concept of why you're doing it at all. chances are you're doing it to run from yourself not because you know what you're doing.

Anyway, you're just speculating and the fact of the matter is that you don't have to speculate. If you actually wanted to verify what I said, it would be very easy to do so. it's not a surprise that someone who doesn't want to know something will have deaf ears. so I'm not going to pretend that I stand a chance of convincing you when I already know that my argument is accurate.

don't be so sure that you meet the criteria for AGI.

and as for my slam dunk, any attempt to argue against the existence of truth, automatically validates your assumption of its existence. so don't make the mistake of assuming I had to argue about it. I was merely stating a fact.

[coldtea]

>no, you missed some of my sentences. you have to take the whole picture together. and I was not making an argument to you to prove the existence of the truth. You are clearly bent on arguing against its existence, which tells me enough about you. We were talking about agents that operate in good faith that know that they are safe. When you're ready to have a discussion in good faith rather than attempting to find counterarguments, then you will find that what I said is verifiable. The question is not whether you think you can come up with a way to make an argument that sounds like it contradicts what I said. (...) don't be so sure that you meet the criteria for AGI

Sorry, I'm not interested in replying to ad-hominem jabs and insults, when I made perfectly clear (if basic) and non-personal arguments.

In any case, your comments ignore about all of epistemology and just take for granted whatever naive folk epistemology you have arrived at, and you're not interested in counter-arguments anyway, so, have a nice life.