On exactly that, the fact that the more that we summarise, what I think is a exceedingly

clear body of work in the fabric of reality in the beginning of charity, when nonetheless

you explain it to people, as Popper says, you know, it's impossible to speak in such a way as to

not be misunderstood. I was just reading today on Twitter, someone claiming that

you have said, quoting you, and they've put it in quote marks, you have apparently said,

Popper proves AI can't be super intelligent. And, you know, I sort of respond to, you know,

he never even speaks in those terms that you

wouldn't rely upon the authority of poverty to begin with.

You wouldn't say proof.

So there's just another example that you go out there and, as you say, these concentric

circles of people that you bring in to trying to understand your worldview, the misconceptions

compound. I don't know what you think

about that. Have you said anything like Popper proves that, and this was from a journalist, by the way.

I think a reasonably respected journalist was saying this. No, of course not. So, as you say,

I mean, as soon as you see a claim that somebody has proved something, then, you know, proved it from what?

This isn't going to be proper. It isn't going to be me. I've proved that if quantum theory is true,

then the Turing conjecture is true in physics. You know, that's what you can do with the proof.

Proving something about

AGI is inherently impossible if we don't have a theory of AGI, that, you know, you can't

prove something about something that you can't define. And anyway, proof isn't what these kind

of things are about. These kind of things are about argument. And Popper, I can't recall Popper specifically saying

anything about AI. It wasn't a thing in those days. This word proof is something we haven't talked

...