Tech-priests.

I agree that this is how things should go. Not that publicly funded and freely available AI systems can't become corrupted by the interests of a powerful few, but it would be best to at least try to create and maintain it, because profit driven control by a powerful few is the default future if we can't agree on another action plan.

It's not only that equitable sharing of the benefits of AI creates positive change in humanity, but it also eases the critical problem of class division, which is set to create some real issues for everyone going forward, particularly the working/consumer class. If we give everyone the benefits of the best information and tools available, then we solve the bulk of the class division problem and can move on to figuring out how to mitigate the risks of the highly dynamic economy that would result. If we just let the entire economy get automated and monopolized in the hands of a few, then things will be weird and/or shitty and the playing field might never get leveled if we drift too far apart. Maybe that's okay, but I bet it would suck.

Government funding to provide people with a range of information and digital tools would be good. Nonprofit products could do the same thing with enough donation. In the absence of those options, we could always hope for an enterprise to be responsible with this technology and find ways to fund it while making it accessible and fair. But probably, if we don't find a way to organize and lobby for the interests of the masses in a unified way, the best tools will continue to be owned by a small group.

Why do we have to complicate the process to meet some arbitrary goal which doesn't make our cure better but rather makes it harder to deploy?

Isn't language considered one of the cornerstones of high intelligence? I can kinda see how a LLM could have emergent intelligence since language can be used to describe almost anything.

Hate being watched at jobs and micromanaged. Rather work off premise ones where I can do my own thing with a productivity goal or set task for day

to get a full dyson sphere as depicted by freeman dyson.. and not the pop sci-fi version of a solid sphere shell. Would still likely require as dismantling mercury for raw materials .. that or we get really ambitious and try for stellar mass lifting and mine Sol directory for materials

[removed]

Well, I don’t believe consciousness is computational. I think Roger Penrose’s quantum brain theory is more likely to be accurate. So if an AI told me it was conscious, I wouldn’t believe it. If consciousness arose from complexity alone, we should have signs of it in all sorts of complex systems, but we don’t, and not even the slightest hint of it in AI. The AI people hate his theory because it means literal consciousness is very far out.

[removed]

I think you're looking at the CO2 output only graph, i suspect perhaps in aggregate they provide net zero for 2050.

In P12 Box SPM.1.1, and P14 note 25 (explicitly), both state net zero for that date.

It's also possible the graph doesn't align to the notes due to an error.

They way we do it now is as follows:

1. hospital sends blood of the cancer patient to us.
2. we filter out all the cells other than the killer T cells
3. we inject a virus that contains the genetic material that fights the cancer. The virus infects the killer T-cells and inserts its own genetic material into the T-cells.
4. we incubate and grow the T-cells a little over a week until there are enough to meet the required dose.
5. we wash out the viruses and cell food juices, freeze the cells, and send them back to the hospital.
6. doctor injects the cells back into the patient and they usually become cancer free within two weeks.

I don't see how you would change all the cancer cells in this way. It's more complicated people might think.

[removed]

If fusion is ever tamed, it would likely make Dyson spheres moot or shrink the dynamic. Stars are convenient energy sources because they already exist, but their power density is low. Fusion power would have much greater power density, opening the possibility for a self-sufficient Dyson-esque "town."

Or OP’s mom

This is the correct answer. If you do the math wrong, the math will be wrong.

How else you gonna get that sweet sweet white science?

> I would note though that SSP1-2.6 also describes a net zero by 2050

SSP1-2.6 doesn't reach net zero until 2075 (p.13), so it has significant net positive cumulative emissions between 2050 and 2090 (the 2041-2060 and 2081-2100 intervals).

[removed]

With crispr you can just attack the cancer DNA itself and shred it. No fancy reprogramming needed

nah mom would say we have a Dyson sphere at home

[removed]

Ah, you are correct. This isn't clear from the table on P13, the 'total warming' note underneath makes that ambiguous.

I would note though that SSP1-2.6 also describes a net zero by 2050 followed by negative emissions, but still sees a temperature increase by 2100.

Everything about cancer is click bait.

>Attempts to do so have proven unfruitful.

What you mean is that you're not convinced by any arguments/explanations/evidence that you've ever come across. Many people are.

I'm not put off by the lack of a scientific proof. I think that there's more to life than what can be measured using scientific instruments. Life has unequivocally taught me this truth. It doesn't follow that there is necessarily a soul but I get the sense of it being a valid concept - and I am far from the only one to think that. But I understand the intransigence of the hard materialist / scientific reductionist position so there might perhaps be a little difficulty agreeing to disagree (apologies if I'm being unduly cynical).

I don't think it follows at all that "we are just neural nets, nothing more". That's an extremely narrow take on human consciousness which is obvious to anyone who has scratched the surface.

The United States congress can’t manage to agree on anything, can you imagine trying to get the entire world to agree? Poorer countries wouldn’t be able to afford it, and I doubt rich countries will pay for it in other countries.