You’re right about the first. The argument can be made for the second, but many reasonable people disagree about bundling/preferential treatment being anticompetitive.
First of all we should at least have a common definition what intelligence even is.
Even then I'm not sure we'd know what General Intelligence would be because all we know is Human Intelligence or maybe lower level Animal Intelligences where the problem solving mechanism seems to depend on biological body and it's form.
Humans navigate the world with automatic impulses which we evolved over time to deal with way too much signals from the environment so we can filter and react only to those important.
We can then use consciousness to slowly map new impulses as the environment changes and go back to autopilot for most of the time.
What if our intelligence isn't general but it's just enough to navigate the world we can perceive with out senses? What if we'll never be able to understand e.g. the quantum theory (or at least the part of a world experience which we call this way)? If there's is superset of out intelligence or different sets of intelligences which we just don't undestand?
We think that our problem solving can take on any problem but maybe we're only taking on the problems we can take on, limited to our perception of reality which can be limited?
So I think instead of calling it AGI the name should be more like Artificial Human-like Intelligence.
It depends on your moral values which can be different.
If you skip the simplification vegans are using to justify eating plants (they don't scream and run away when we're trying to eat them) you hardly can eat anything ethically.
Plants lack nerves or a central nervous system or the ability to directly react to their circumstances, at somepoint you have to draw a line somewhere and most draw the line there. Regardless, if you really believe that plants feel pain, you're killing a lot more of them by raising animals for dairy and meat.
Industrial plant agriculture kills and displaces untold numbers of small ground mammals. Thus the urban vegan doesn't get to pretend they have clean hands.
A pasture-fed cow kills approximately zero of the same.
Assuming your ethics give equal treatment to all mammals, the rural hobby farmer comes out far, far ahead of the urban vegan.
Cite your sources. This is a statement made by many without evidence.
Sure, if we all had a cow and two acres and lived in a temperature environment where the animals could graze all year, we could have milk after the cow has had a calf. But who impregnated her? And what are you doing with the calf because it needs two acres of grazing pasture too. And then who impregnates her next year and what do you do with that calf? Another two acres? What about the harsh winter or summer? You're going to need to supplement with extra hay. Off to the agricultural supply who... ah crap, they farm. Farming kills fuzzy animals! Now we're terrible again!
Cows, like all mammals, aren't unending milk supply systems. They dry up because they lactate for a reason. Your imaginary hobby farm is an unsustainable system.
Source: I have a grazing pasture and grazing animals.
Is rural hobby farming a massively scalable lifestyle? Would it still be less detrimental to the environment if everyone was doing it? I can’t imagine how much land, forests, wild animals that would displace.
That's a great point! The pain rule seems a little arbitrary to me. Pain evolved only in some life forms for which it was beneficiary. It doesn't seem to make killing them more problematic than life forms which can't feel pain. It's only our emotions which react to pain and thus it seems worse.
Apart from "written in X" is kind of clickbaity I find it useful after all. I think that Go code is clear and readable and so it would be much easier to add missing feature and use if I had such need.
Where "written in Rust" is almost a show stopper for me because I just can't read through the source despite numerous attempts (not saying that Rust is bad of course, it's just subjectively hard to approach for me)
I think it's big companies' websites which are bloated and slow compared to "kids and experimental artists".
> Second, the internet is supposed to be a place of equality, where kids, experimental artists and businesses all get the same respect and treatment
I think it's okay not to respect poorly written websites as long as it's the people who can judege. But when big corpos are putting regulations in place on what it means to have a good website – I agree with your point and someday it might impossible to run your own website like it's now with mail server.
As long as users can choose different computers (PCs) and phones (Android) there is no monopoly problem.