# Career, Physics and Goals (was: Artificial General Intelligence Speculations) **URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/career-physics-and-goals-was-artificial-general-intelligence-speculations/473 **Category:** Unbounded **Created:** [January 5, 2022, 7:33am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/career-physics-and-goals-was-artificial-general-intelligence-speculations/473 "2022-01-05T07:33:01Z") **Posts on this page:** 1 **Showing post:** 224
### Author: ![lmf](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/lmf/32/1302_2.png) [@lmf](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/lmf) #### Post date: [February 23, 2022, 6:44pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/career-physics-and-goals-was-artificial-general-intelligence-speculations/473/224 "2022-02-23T18:44:06Z")
> [@Elliot](#): > > > [@lmf](#): > > > > The “please enlighten me” was not snark, it was genuine. > > Assertions are not arguments, explanations or reasoning. This assertion should not persuade yourself or me. I’ll actually try giving arguments, instead of just assuming they aren’t good enough. I’ll start with an argument that’s an elaboration on this: > [@lmf](#): > > After I posted it, it occurred to me that it might have had an insufficiently deferential tone, and so I added the second comment to clarify that I expected to be wrong, that I was curious why you said it was disorganized, and that I was trying to learn. I specifically remember writing the second comment to make the first comment sound more friendly and deferential. How could I _accidentally_ be snarky and aggressive in my 2nd comment, when my explicit purpose in writing the 2nd comment was to make sure my first comment wasn’t misinterpreted as aggressive? It basically seems impossible to me. What’s your theory of how that could have happened? --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/career-physics-and-goals-was-artificial-general-intelligence-speculations/473)._