I realized what bothers me about @vitalik.eth d/acc essay. Even though it is optimistic, it shares with the pessimist side a presumption that technology, as an evolutionary process, *can* be governed according to some notion of human intent.

“Tech can/cannot be governed” is a bigger divide than optimism/pessimism

Blogger at ribbonfarm.com, running summerofprotocols.com, host of /gloom ☀️

The rare technologies we’ve been able to weakly “govern”, like nuclear have a) highly upstream proliferation choke points (fissile materials) without which knowledge is useless b) no real upside to small-scale/retail use/democratization. I want AI; I don’t really want a backyard or small-biz nuclear plant.

what do you think about the argument that AGI isn't even technology. 

i'm more on the e/acc side and like d/acc too. 
but let's contemplate this: not thinking of AGI as a 'tool meant to solve human problems' breaks the pmarca paradigm that 'this is just like all other technologies in the past'.

in my "shitposting from main" phase ||

stuff people usually put in their bios here: mosayeri.com

I think AGI is a bullshit concept to begin with. Like “God”