&gt; There is peer-review happening in the comments to some extent.<p>Lol. I guess we don&#x27;t need college education as well then, there&#x27;s education happening in the comments to some extent. We don&#x27;t need traditional means of news, there&#x27;s news happening on Twitter to some extent. I could go on with analogous line of reasoning.<p>Don&#x27;t get me wrong, I&#x27;m not 100% in favour of the traditional education model as well, but peer reviews exist for a reason. You and I are not experts in these fields. We rely on the expertise of people who have made it their business and life to study these fields based on a rigorous method. Would you try out homeopathy had it not been rejected completely by doctors and scientists but someone on a forum told you it worked for them? What if someone wrote a very long article with fancy words (like LW tends to do) explaining how and why it works (they exist, I assure you)? Would you try it then?<p>&gt;  I don&#x27;t take a fancy to dismissing any radical ideas as pseudoscience.<p>Sure, I&#x27;m not saying we should be against radical ideas. That&#x27;s how scientific progress happens. I&#x27;m against LW ideas, for which there is no basis in reality as far as we know based on our current understanding of science.<p>&gt; I differentiate within these communities between what is valuable and what is not.<p>Indeed. But I&#x27;d rather the community&#x27;s entire existence not depend on bullshit.<p>&gt; At the risk of seeming indoctrinated to you, ...<p>a) Keywords: &quot;If&quot;, &quot;Seems&quot;
b) Tons of assumptions in that scenario you laid out. If you can&#x27;t see it, I&#x27;m sorry but you&#x27;re already too far gone.
c) Watch some MIT lectures on computer architectures about how the trend of Moore&#x27;s law has already radically shifted and is flatlining.<p>Basically, what you&#x27;ve done is precisely the kind of utter crap that LW perpetuates. &quot;If x keeps happening&quot; without providing any reason as to why that would be true. Make some <i>ridiculous</i> simplifications &quot;complexity is limited by ___&quot;, nature often does __ because ___. You basically don&#x27;t provide any rational reason for why you think AI will be super intelligent and even if it were, why that would be risky. You pick numbers out of a hat (10-40 years to come).<p>Yes, you look pretty well indoctrinated from where I&#x27;m sitting. But I hope you see the many (so many) flaws in that last paragraph of yours (it honestly made me laugh out loud :p)<p>Predicting the future is hard business -- be it the stock market predicting what happens tomorrow, or weather forecast for the next month. It&#x27;s presumptuous and hella stupid if you think you can predict where Science and Technology will be x years from now.<p>TL;DR: Stahp.