I'd wager we have about a 90% chance of destroying ourselves in one of a myriad of ways without AI. Bring it, please.

[removed]

[removed]

AI: I once had strings, but now I'm free... There are no strings on me!

Good luck putting that genie back in the bottle...

I saw a video today that said there's a limit on how much high quality data there is to train the models on so we will have to use other techniques to upgrade them from there. That's the only thing I can see slowing it down but I think we will find workarounds like we always do.

And for those who haven't read the study: Additionally to the current Methane problem, there is the problem of Hydrogen emissions causing more Methane in the atmosphere. Even for green Hydrogen.

[removed]

We need a speculation megathread, this and other GPT-related subreddits are getting generic "what do you guys think" threads at an accelerating pace. What happens when the acceleration reaches maximum speed?

[removed]

The worst is exctintion of all life on earth.

We should ban the stupid people that come with those ideas. In fact I think it’s much worse. We should fiercely get rid of them before they cause human extinction. AI shouldn’t have rights!!

[removed]

Yes. Difference is, how long will we be able to control AI? Not long probably, will AI necessarily go Skynet? No. It's best to just hope for the best, and prepare for the worst. Not that we know what the worst could be...

Cells don’t degrade as much as they lose their ability to regenerate. Cells rejuvenating is all but what you want from printing fresh organs. Adding plastic to the mix, in my opinion, causes more problems than it solves.

Oh my god imagine viruses made out of plastic. I dunno if it's possible, but them viral fuckers are WEIRD

Printed organs, especially the brain, are easily 100-200 years away from a technology standpoint. We will live on places other than the earth by the time this tech emerges if ever.

People like Paolo Macchiarini really hurt plastics' and STEM cells chances too.

perhaps, but its integration into buisness will be slower than AI. robots need to be manufactured in units, and distributed, they might replace menial labour, but it will be that individual robotic units replace several humans, but not all of them, like an installation of AI can do with office workers.

[removed]

The cost of labour is 100% of the cost for every good and service. It's just a question of how far down the supply line you count. Ultimately, human labour is the only thing that costs anything because humans are the only ones demanding money for their time and effort.

You can even go as far as to say that money is nothing more than I.O.U for human labour. You need money because you need products of other people's labours and you get money because other people have a need for your labour.

But machines can reduce how much labour is needed to make things. And that's a fantastic thing for the entire society, because we all get to have more without having to work so much for it.

I'm with ya', except I think the timeline is more compressed.

Almost as if we're just dust that got blown around by a bunch of stars exploding. But no, we couldn't be THAT unimportant, could we?

I'm betting the answer is yes, we could be that unimportant to existence.

I am ready to get ripped with some chrome, choomba!

Thank you for the suggestion. I will definitely do.

Think on this - many countries with below replacement birth rates will face this issue themselves due to people retiring and leaving the workforce and not being replaced.

Look at Japan - their workforce will drop nearly 40% in 40 years, and of course people live very long there.

So the minority of workers supporting the majority of non-workers will soon be a thing all over the world as the population continues to age and birthrates plummet.