Of course not. But this is an article written about the study on a for-profit website. Clearly they wanted to make the study seem much more interesting than it actually is by being needlessly verbose and ambiguous about it. Which is all too common in garbage journalism in general.

This is so poorly written as to be infuriating.

tl;dr when there's any kind of perceived gap in levels of sexual interest between partners, it doesn't bode well for the relationship. Surprising absolutely nobody. If only the study had anything more interesting to say than that, but it doesn't.

Thank you. I will now eat this slice of cake for breakfast as if I'd accomplished something meaningful.

Well that's a goalpost move, isn't it? My criticism was about you perpetuating the urban myth about pennies and nothing else. I didn't go on to say "Therefore your analogy is invalid" or something.

You couldn't be arsed to spend five seconds googling before writing this comment? Seriously?

It's utterly incapable of causing serious injury. Do you not understand the concept of terminal velocity?

https://www.livescience.com/18832-penny-dropped-skyscraper.html

"Instead, it would flutter to the ground like a leaf. If it did strike you, it would feel like being flicked in the forehead — "but not even very hard," said Louis Bloomfield, a physicist at the University of Virginia. And he should know. He recently used wind tunnels and helium balloons to replicate the fall of pennies from skyscrapers. When experimental pennies struck him, it didn't hurt. "I think one bounced off my face once," Bloomfield told Life's Little Mysteries."

"What a penny does thrown off a skyscraper"? Yeah: it hits terminal velocity after about 50 feet. Hurts a little if it hits you in the head, maybe causes more serious damage if by some chance it gets you in the eye. That's about it.

Perpetuating urban myths really hurts your credibility.

I think anything that can compete with human creative writing is necessarily going to be strong AI/AGI, by which point the world as we know it would have ended anyway.

That is to say: you'd have to be able to pass the Turing Test. Language itself is the ultimate and final domain of human intelligence, and storytelling is arguably the subtlest expression of it.

I'm pretty sure we're well within the range of time where we'll see either civilizational collapse or singularity, provided you can tough it out for another few decades.

I'm not sure what kind of internet you were on, but there was definitely loads of free porn circa 2002.

And every single one of those single brains stood on the shoulders of giants, because that's how humans work: we're a social species. The last time there was any innovation that didn't involve a social element was probably hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Even to produce individuals capable of such insights requires society and culture.

Thanks for taking the bait, I love it when Musk fanboys walk right into this one:

Musk founded X.com, which was little more than an online bank. He actually lost a power struggle with co-founder Harris Fricker, who became CEO of the company, and Musk basically lost control. X.com then acquired Confinity, which had already developed PayPal. Musk didn't do shit as far as PayPal itself was concerned. He was "around" in some capacity when it exploded, but he played no part in its development, and it wasn't his vision, either. PayPal exploded because it was PayPal, and nothing Musk did had anything to do with its success, since he didn't develop it nor "shepherd" it in any meaningful capacity.

Which companies are you even talking about, other than SpaceX and Tesla? Surely you don't mean Neuralink or The Boring company, both of which are basically jokes, one of which is literally a joke.

Imagine voting "he is important to technological progress" literally days after he tanks a $40 billion tech company.

Let that sink in: all he had to do was nothing. But because he couldn't merely do nothing, it's now on the verge of collapse.

"All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone", as they say.

Lol, that's literally already how our brains interface with computers. That's a monitor bro.

Have you been thinking all this time that processor architecture is described in terms of millimeters?

Good point. I suppose one may as well make a habit of it before it actually matters.

Don't tell me: your name is a portmanteau of Nick Bostrom.

Do you get some kind of kick out of being polite to the AI?

This really stretches the limits of what the word "record" means. When you "break a record", it's in terms of performance during a specific kind of procedure, game, whatever.

This is a matter of changing the procedure itself. It's a new convention, or maybe even what you could call a "paradigm shift" within the domain of matrix multiplication, but calling it a "math record" is utterly weird. Breaking a "math record" would be like, I don't know, greatest number of problems solved in your local high school mathletes competition or something.

I think you're really asking "What will people do". Jobs only exist because of necessity--if humans even manage to stick around after AGI surpasses them, then nothing humans do anymore will be out of necessity. If there's no money, no scarcity, no requirements for humans other than to eat and sleep and breathe, then nothing anybody might want to do could sensibly be referred to as a "job".