Yes, there is. Even if you alter the definition, the same time it splits into two concepts. If you change the meaning of "handcrafted" into something like "created randomly either by machines or humans", you just create an other concept. So, now you have a category of "handcrafted items" which has two subcategories: machine made and man made. The latter obviously can't be produced by machines.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this action, because every time a new definition will be born. It's not possible to erase a concept from existence, therefor there will always be stuffs which, by definition, can't be made by machines.

Are you projecting?

Damn why so negative

I said the money shoulda been in NASA

You get this pissy

Talking about negative when you acting like this

Bro, you brought your negative ass attitude and reformer mindset into my comment about the the hopes for the future of space. Literally trying to make SpaceX seem worthless on a post about its success. I was being nice at first. I told you Idgaf about Elon anymore, only SpaceX and you doubled down with whatever repetitive Elon put downs twitter regularly likes to spout.

If you want content like that, go to r/enoughmuskspam

You might actually like the content there, despite their name making absolutely no sense

Sice you mentioned really good example of how it should be done, I'm done discussing Antonios bullshit .

Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (IPCC 2022a).

This one is actually a great scientific report. I used technical summary since whole report is too large.

Not too hard to understand. For those who don't have time to read there is an awesome list of Representative Key Risk on page 113, as well is great succinct recap on them:

>For most RKRs, potentially global and systemically pervasive risks become severe in the case of high levels of warming, combined with high exposure/vulnerability, low adaptation or both

And looks like it says exactly what I highlighted: in vulnerable regions that fail to adapt.

Who would have thought?.. /s

Page 116 is actually brilliant sum up of risks and *conditions* under which under which risks could become severe. Note how real science does not talk "doom, inevitable doom and death, grave, grave, point of no return"? This is the whole point of my rant.

I gotta thank you now that I have scientific report to point it is going to be easier to drive my point that doomers are just that, doomers. There is no inevitability, it is not global, it is not indiscriminate, it is not unconditional and here is a scientific report that point that out: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_TechnicalSummary.pdf

While not exactly what you are asking about, it is definitely going to make its way into gaming. There's a demo using AI to make some pretty good generative dialog.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnF4WzM5LPU

[deleted]

Yes, but they aren't because people aren't making them—and a lot of people do not take climate change seriously because the "zone has been flooded with shit" to borrow a phrase.

[removed]

Well, I can be very persuasive when I need to. Plus, you shouldn't assume that it's thought process would operate within the same boundaries the average human mind has. I bet most of the times, as long as it's something non-detrimental and can be done with a flick of a metaphorical wrist, it'll go full "I gotchu, homie" mode.

But, well, if a regular AI will be able to do the fun stuff to the same capacity a hypothetical AGI can, then I wouldn't mind to settle for either, really.

Agree on the jets and yachts. If govt was serious on climate change, they would tax the shit out of them.

[removed]

Seems unwise. They're bartenders, not therapists. There's professionals for therapy. You're better off using telehealth.

Nobody is promoting climate change, except oil executives.

But so what if it's hypocrisy? Who benefits from you deciding that climate change doesn't matter because of it? The same hypocrites!

If it was up to me, private jets and yachts would be illegal (or severely taxed so that the outcome would be similar) for climate reasons. Why aren't they? Because there is no strong political movement to fix it and a big reason for that is nonsense like you are peddling.

> That report is about projected warming of to ~2.8C by 2100, just like many other similar reports that put it into 2.5-2.8 range. And just like others it discusses possiblities and scenarios of getting in below 1.5 and 2C. Which are very illusional and those unreachable in rational terms scenarios

Says you, decidedly NOT a climate scientists. On the other hand, the climate scientists in that report seem to think they're necessary goals.

> Antonio uses to scream loud titles and get anxious clicks from modern "final day witnesses", despite there is nothing about "catastrophe", "bUrNing" or similar doomers' vocabulary in the report.

The title of the report is literally "The Closing Window Climate crisis calls for rapid transformation of societies"

It discusses extensively the risk and impact of failure to address climate change.

> Why? You can't read yourself?

I can, and did. Did you? If so, you missed this in the third paragraph of the introduction:

"Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published two reports as part of its Sixth Assessment cycle, on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (IPCC 2022a) and Mitigation of Climate Change (IPCC 2022b). The reports record the vast impacts of climate change that we are already experiencing, and how the climate risks of the future are of a much greater order of magnitude. Once again, these reports document that the scale and rate of climate change and associated risks depend strongly on near-term mitigation and adaptation actions, finding that projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages escalate with every increment of global warming. This year, as has repeatedly been the case in recent years, many countries have experienced an unprecedented number of climate events, with extreme weather leading to flooding, drought and wildfires, and causing food shortages, health problems, and major damage to ecosystems and human habitats, leading to internal displacement and migration around the world."

There's that doomer language you claimed wasn't in it. That's why I asked you to read it.

If u buy into this story you may need help yourself dont u think they lie about everything this is just a drop in the bucket

Look up the "Wave Function Collapse Algorithm". We've been using AI (more accurately machine learning) for a long time to quickly build highly complex game worlds.

> What are your bartenders doing other than that?

For some people, they're a cheaper (for people in the US) and less judgemental therapist.

Of course it technologically can do as well or better -- just like Chess Youtuber -- and soldier -- and landlord -- and all of those categories.

I'm just saying it'll be many years before a Pope agrees.

Actually, you’re the one need to prove that statistics will somehow evolve into an AGI…

You can’t prove a negative.

An actual AGI means it can think for itself, it might not agree with the applications you have in mind for it

But AGI might still be a long way off, we will however have extremely capable "regular" AI within this decade.

Well since you wanna bring up reading

I physically can’t you dumbass

His dad owned slaves

He’s the son of a slave owner

I never said he owned slaves

I said his daddy did and he could

Dumbass

If you rephrase that sentance I can answer it but for now it’s gibberish

I'm saying the whole story is not true.

It's completely made up!

You will realise this once you try to look up the name or the location of this supposed mine.

To make my point very clear. I'll send you 50€ if your next comment contains the name and the location (together with verifiable sources) of the mine you think made Elon Musk "the son of a slave owner".

I can see plenty of applications for AGI and it's been my lifelong dream ever since I found out about this concept. I hope I'll manage to survive until the time it becomes available for general public.

Nope. There is nothing intrinsic about a definition.