ExLisper

It is extremely polarized but it's not about elections. Couple examples of what the president is doing now:

• the constitution is clear that the government (so the Prime Minister and his staff) is responsible for foreign policy. When the president goes abroad he should get his instructions from the government and be accompanied by someone from the government. President ignored this before meeting Trump. He's basically trying to run parallel foreign policy which is crazy dangerous and damaging
• new judges have to be swear in before the president. it's just a ceremony but the president decided he will not swear in judges he doesn't like
• same with ambassadors. according to the constitution those are nominated by the gov but the president decided he will only swear in those he approves

He's basically using weak points of the constitution (which admittedly is simply badly written) to derail the government and is trying to rule in parallel where possible even though his post was designed as a purely ceremonial one.

Loads of countries have royal families. I said many times that it's not a stupid model and latest events in Poland only confirm this.

Long story short: Polish president has mostly decorative role but current far-right guy is now illegally usurping powers that are constitutionally not his and conspiring with Trump behind the government's back.

In monarchies the King/Queen have pretty much the same role but their position is so weak that they simply smile and follow the orders. They have a lot to lose and nothing to gain.

• Daddy, what did you do at work today?
• I arrested a granny because she said starving children to death is bad.

Yes but if they stop breaking the rules those profit will not fall to $0.

That's unexpected. Are they realizing that rolling over for Trump doesn't lead anywhere?

That's not how it works. Questions is how much more money they made by breaking this specific rules. If breaking the rules allowed to increase the profits by more then 3.5B then the fine is too small. If, for example, they made only $1B extra by breaking those rules then they effectively lost $2.5B and will stop breaking them.

Good news! EU passed the law they have to be back in 2027 (IIRC)!

General population was always anti immigrant but the ruling class was smart enough to understand they needed immigration to sustain the growth. What changed is that everyone got so dumb they don't know what's in their best interest anymore.

But how can you know it's chatbot and not just a human pretending to be a bot?

Hey, if we're doing quirky pones only 1% of users will ever consider buying again can you bring back hardware keyboards please?

I don't think you can define AGI in a way that would make it substrate dependent. It's simply about behaving in a certain way. Sufficiently complex set of 'if -> then' statements could pass as AGI. The limitation is computation power and practicality of creating the rules. We already have supercomputers that could easily emulate AGI but we don't have a practical way of writing all the 'if -> then' rules and I don't see how creating the rules could be substrate dependent.

Edit: Actually, I don't know if current supercomputers could process input fast enough to pass as AGI but it's still about computation power, not substrate. There's nothing suggesting we will not be able to keep increasing computational power without some biological substrate.

You're talking about consciousness, not AGI. We will never be able to tell if AI has "real" consciousness or not. The goal is really to create an AI that acts intelligent enough to convince people that it may be conscious.

Basically, we will "hit" AGI when enough people will start treating it like it's AGI, not when we achieve some magical technological breakthrough and say "this is AGI".