As per IPCC we are on track to 2.5-2.7C warming by 2100.

Estimated sea rise for 2.5C is 58 cm.

People will not "be drowning" because of sea rise.

I believe in science. I don't believe in doomers crap.

are we absolutely sure that the average multiple during high rate environments is going to stabilize at a minimum, and during a zero-rate moment in the not-too-distant future, are average multiples going to reach a maximum because they must be dictated by retail speculation as the buyer of last resort? I'm willing to argue no to both. we're going to observe disruption that supercedes the macro sentiment.

I think the general approach of roguelike games can work. Use it to generate level design. Place on the level playable characters based on selected genre. Use AI to generate models and music to make it fresh. Use AI to write dialogue of NPC.

I think such modular roguelike with selectable genre is possible.

[removed]

No, these headlines are not consensus of large group of scientists. He interprets IPCC reports whatever he sees fit for headlines and dramatizes science to the point of perversion.

Dramatic and factually false headlines have clear psychological side effects on people with unknown long term consequences. I regularly see people on this sub citing climate as *main* reason they do not have kids or do not plan for future.

Thanks to headlines like this. Thanks to people like him. And to people like you who see nothing special in his lies, because "the cause is just".

I mean a complete game just like how Bluewillow works creating an image out of text.

That's what we do with each other.

It is theoretical bc currently (and for foreseeable future) value multiples are more affected by interest rates than AI or any other technology

For purely speculative tech like AI, valuations don't matter, momentum and money flow does ie. Pets.com during dot com bubble

precisely the point. but it's not a theoretical conjecture, there is a very practical connection between the job exposure paper, several sources of labor market truth, and the current capabilities of Langchain + Alpaca. everyone should be asking why the public should bear anywhere the same cost to necessitate the multiple that VCs/CEOs/EAs/consultants are compensated for, given how exposed these sectors are at present.

> when these “environments” don’t suggest it

These what

Also no, nuclear is not the solution, I don't know how often this has to be pointed out. Nuclear is too slow, to expensive and not even scalable:

https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J

https://spectator.clingendael.org/en/publication/nuclear-energy-too-costly-and-too-late

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-still-not-viable-without-subsidies

while renewables are pretty much the opposite on every one of these points. The nuclear industry - like the fossil fuel lobby - is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Ok I'll just be blunt this time then. Your question is basically asking the same thing, whether the market is evaluating cost effectiveness of AI replacing job it is basically same as evaluating market value of nature of change in the firm

AI has reduced $100mil in payroll vs the perceived market value of XYZ change in the nature in the firm has generated $100mil reduction in expenses or $100mil increase in value = basically same thing

[deleted]

[removed]

*their, *outperformed, *their, *they're

[removed]

Not really. If you read what people predicted in the past about 2023, you might believe that we already have colonies in space, fully autonomous self driving cars, and cure for cancer. You have to filter the output of the chatbot, or it's - well, not gibberish, but extremely suspect information. It doesn't check or provide sources.

This list might be used to look up current projects that are being developed, and with some effort be turned into maybe 20 points of exciting things to look forward to.

But right now it's low effort useless content.

you kinda already can, it generates decent code thats probably less buggy than your average game dev

Man that movie was straight up allegory for climate crisis.

with all due respect, isn't it kind of a cliche to preface something with "not to be rude" with the self-awareness that you're about to state something condescending? and I'd argue the same point of originality or productivity when it comes to estimates of scale for displacement or acceleration. not going to belabor the point, but I'm just emphasizing that "AI replace jobs" is a red herring debate and a waste of time, the actual debate is whether the nature of the firm can be challenged, given the observed change to the market. "If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry."

Turing came up with a model of a theoretical general-purpose computer called the Turing machine, in which its equivalence is called Turing complete, which pretty much all modern general-purpose CPUs will have to abide by.

>A Turing machine is a general example of a central processing unit (CPU) that controls all data manipulation done by a computer, with the canonical machine using sequential memory to store data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine

[removed]

What would a gyro do more than rotate the satellite?

Not to be rude but ill be blunt. It's a lot of words you've typed but you ain't saying much other than hey its not happening now but some time in the future AI will replace a lot of jobs, some more likely than others... not exactly an original or controversial take on things

Turing had nothing to do with cpus
This is totally wrong

I guess some AI might work with the poor.