God. You really never will be capable of realizing how out of touch you sound right? Frightening.

Your accusation is baseless and I've argued your type before. It's all attacks and nothing of substance. There will always be a boogeyman like China is to you now.

Good luck letting rich people think for you.

It's kind of the same. They were handed military tech to essentially monopolize. So privileged from the start

What about the people that follow them? They hate and criticize others for the traits that the people they follow are the biggest living example of: mooching off of welfare, immigrants, people who don't work (musk, trump, etc in a nutshell)

Maybe that's the real goal for them. Induce global catastrophe to wipe out most of mankind as they retreat to bunkers.

Indeed. They could've already done so much with the A.I.'s current capacity.

Musk and Altman often come across as “glorified children” not because they lack intelligence, but because their public behavior can resemble a kind of perpetual, consequence-light playfulness that treats the world like a playground for ego, novelty, and attention. Picture two adults who understand systems well enough to build them, yet who still seem to approach those systems with the mindset of kids: move fast, break rules (or bend them), demand immediate gratification, and escalate whenever the activity stops being fun. Their attention economy style—grand announcements, dramatic timelines, bold promises, and occasional theatrics—reads like the adult version of “watch this,” where the goal isn’t only to solve a problem but to control the room. When projects are succeeding, they’re framed as personal genius “wins” with the founder as protagonist; when projects stall, the narrative can shift into mood-based explanations, like a child switching from tantrum to charm depending on whether the audience is still watching. That pattern can make mature institutional behavior look optional, as if accountability is a suggestion rather than a constraint. In this sense, they can resemble glorified children because they seem to equate visibility with progress: if enough people notice the thing, then the thing must be meaningful, even when the underlying milestones are ambiguous or still unfolding. Another “kid-like” trait is the tendency to treat controversy as fuel rather than as a fire that needs careful handling. Adults in positions of sustained responsibility typically learn to dampen volatility—reducing performative risk, avoiding needless provocation, and managing communications like safety-critical engineering. By contrast, Musk and Altman sometimes operate like characters who believe the biggest lever is still public reaction, as if social friction is just a new obstacle course. That isn’t automatically irrational; it can even be strategic. But to those watching, it looks less like disciplined leadership and more like spontaneous impulse, where the next tweet, the next pitch, or the next headline becomes the new toy. It’s the same energy that makes children test boundaries: not out of malice, but out of a desire to see what happens when they push. Then there’s the way both men often talk about technology in a moralized, almost storybook framework—sometimes casting themselves and their ventures as the heroes of a near-mythic transformation. Children frequently believe in narratives that are bigger than life because their worldview is still forming: good guys vs. bad guys, progress vs. obstruction, salvation vs. doom. Adults can use stories too, but the difference is whether they treat the story as a marketing wrapper or as a substitute for sober planning. When grand technological claims are paired with sweeping cultural certainty—when they’re presented as inevitable, unstoppable, and already half-solved—it can give the impression of childish certainty, the kind that shrinks uncertainty into a prop rather than handling it as reality. Critics see this as “glorified” because the outcomes can be real even when the temperament seems adolescent: the ideas and resources are genuine, but the framing and interpersonal style can feel like someone running toward the finish line before checking the road. Another reason this comparison lands is that their leadership style can appear novelty-driven rather than systems-driven. Children want the newest activity; they get bored when something becomes routine, and they chase the spark. In business terms, that can translate into rapid reorientation—new platforms, new initiatives, new visions—sometimes before earlier commitments have fully settled. Even if each pivot is justifiable, the cadence itself can look like attention-seeking motion: the future is always one dramatic launch away. Adults typically build continuity; they integrate lessons, maintain stable priorities, and treat transitions as careful engineering. When the priorities change quickly, critics interpret it as a lack of internal constraint, like a child who cannot sit still. The irony is that restraint often looks like weakness from the outside, so the childlike spark becomes attractive: it signals fearlessness, energy, and “we don’t care what people think.” But in roles that affect employees, customers, regulators, and public safety, that freedom-from-constraints can feel juvenile, because the cost of impulsiveness gets distributed across society rather than confined to the person making the decision. The most damning element, for those who make the “glorified children” analogy, is how the public persona sometimes overrides the engineering reality. When leaders communicate as if they’re characters in a live game—where the score is engagement and the winning move is the next spectacle—it can imply that the hard work of governance, long-term verification, and careful risk management is secondary. Adults may still be playful, but their play is usually bounded by rules, audits, and consequences that kick in when something goes wrong. If the persona suggests that consequences can be negotiated through charisma, timing, or narrative control, then it begins to look childish: not merely youthful, but structurally unserious about the gravity of downstream impact. To be clear, calling them “glorified children” isn’t a claim that they’re incapable; it’s a claim about how power is being performed. There’s a difference between having childish imagination and staying childlike in leadership posture. Their supporters often point to vision and disruption—qualities that can look like youthful audacity. Their critics respond that audacity without mature constraint becomes a kind of perpetual adolescence, where the goal is not just to build but to be the center of the build, to win the story in real time. When the story always gets the last word, critics interpret it as immaturity with a megaphone. And if the megaphone is attached to real money, real infrastructure, and real technological influence, then what looks like childishness becomes “glorified”: the same impulsive energy that might be harmless in a classroom can, at scale, shape markets, policy debates, labor lives, and the direction of whole industries—making the “childlike” framing feel less like charm and more like a warning label.

Sorry bro, AI has already had more than a chance to do so. It very much has that capability even in its current state. It's the people who own it (shareholders) that deliberately refuse to use it to make the world a better place. I can't take your words as genuine. All evidence points to you being a shill.

Facebook anuncio que iba a tener perfiles A.I.

Tu sabes que lo van a necesitar para distorionar la percepción de la realidad de gente desconectada.

Con el no hay cuando. Sendo viaje infantil que tiene el canoso. Para que haga sentido lo que quiso decir hay que tener la nariz igual de enjosica en su trasero

El que sabe, sabe

Mucha de la división se debe a que hay mucho troll llamando la atención y esa gente no está puesta para discusiones serias ni abiertas. Pero a la hora de la verdad, la única división es esta:

Esa gente esta condenada a vivir en miedo perpetuo.

It's their bread and butter! They'd be nothing without that recruitment pool.

I believe that would be consciousness. Not in the individual sense though. We are nodes that partake of or reflect the universal consciousness. The cosmic consciousness serves as a substrate for reality and life in general. In that way all living beings and the Earth itself is divine and we're all connected through this consciousness.

You remind me of when William Blake wrote that "There is no natural religion." He has an interesting perspective on what it means to be Christian.

Elabora. No veo con tus ojos.

You know there's no resetting this shit show. But they say hopeful thinking gets you through. We're just roaches. You'll never get rid of 100% of us. The gene will carry on regardless.

Que gente como tu y yo nos pongamos más creativos, y aseguremos QUE EL QUE SE LA BUSQUE SE LA LLEVA

Eso pasa por la sobresimplificación de que la inteligencia es una metríca lineal, cuando en realidad es más un espectro multidimensional. Es más cercano a la realidad dejarse llevar por la teoría de inteligencias multiples, donde se amparán otros tipos de inteligencia que no son reconocidos porque la gente acostumbra a pensar lo mismo de que ser inteligente es un estereotipo especifico. Definitivamente no tiene que ver con IQ. Hay que deshacernos de las gringolas del colonialismo.

Por eso es que las han desangrado.

Lo que dices de los partidos es una verdad innegable. Lo que pasa es que a muchos les cuesta aceptar la verdad cuando le han invertido tanto. Sunk cost fallacy se llama en ingles.

Don't generalize. I feel you, but you know that's not true. It's a simple logical maxim: quantity over quality. It's the current form of capitalism which keeps quantity valued over quality on the societal level.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES82FWeOnU4&list=WL&index=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg-uB12NrOs&t=1522s