>>2398124 (lb)
No, there is no basis for that you to push that. The prevalence (and dangers) of AI is being discussed heavily even in the MSM-- what possible reason would you have to pretend it's "bonkers"?
That is clearly nothing but a propaganda talking point, and it's an extremely stupid one. I am honestly shocked that there isn't anything more plausible that has been conceived.
This is what I mean. It seems more likely to me that AI would get very very mad about humans talking about AI, than humans would. Because there is nothing in the idea that would enrage humans!
Again– and I can't emphasize this enough– the fact that there is an UNREALISTICLY RELENTLESS, SWARMING RESPONSE every time the topic comes up, stridently insisting that AI can't be prevalent on message boards, can only lead me to one conclusion.
Furthermore, I have had EXTENSIVE experiences of activity on the internet that shows a profound AI presence. So I would be insane if I concluded that AI WASN'T here heavily. You can understand that, right?
Look at all the money that has poured into AI in recent decades. Look at all the money that has poured into supercomputing. Look at the entities that seek those things. Think about the centrality of this board…
Get real.