I dunno about neuromapping- like, I'd obviously be for it, but it seems that the human brain is fucking COMPLICATED. Like, the only way that would be possible would be in a breakthrough with quantum computing. Not even to mention that it wouldn't be a continuation but a copy- I'd be more interested in replacing the other, less complicated parts of the body with machinery while maintaining the brain as is

All of those things aside from ASIC miners are Turing complete general computing platforms.

A humanoid form is a general purpose platform for robotics.

Why have a specialized robot that cleans the floor, a robot that cooks, a robot that repairs, a robot that bakes when you can just have one that does it all?

What's the point of a smartphone? Sounds silly to me when you can have a specialized camera for photos, a dedicated music player, and a laptop with a full sized keyboard for writing documents.

Getting it now?

There's a reason Tesla is doing their humanoid bot. There's a reason Boston dynamics is doing a humanoid bot. There's a reason every single entity working on this is doing humanoid bots.

Remember, you're on reddit. You have a low IQ.

Or perhaps they need to hire you

There is the mirror test. Being able to look into a mirror and recognize that is your own body that you see. Dolphins and chimps can pass this test

Trump is the one with the beach front property….. for now.

> Once a cell becomes cancerous, the rapid division facilitates further mutation, providing more targets.

That's a fair point, but this also means that tumors have significant heterogeneity, so it can be difficult to find sufficient indels to target. I like your enthusiasm, but this research is still a long ways off from being a 'silver bullet'. Even the paper's authors discuss using it in combination with other treatments.

I'm not saying it won't work; I'm just saying it'll take a lot more funding and research to find out and it's not as simple as you might think.

Dishes is an interesting one. Because it would then basically load the dishes into a specific purpose machine: the dishwasher. I wonder if they will argue.

>Anything that will clue you in can also clue an AI in.

>For example the sign that says Drive-Thru.

why do you keep ignoring my very specific example then? i am in a car with no steering wheel, i want to go to a pumpkin patch with my family. i get to the pumpkin patch in my autonomous car where there is a man sitting in a chair in the middle of a field. how does the AI know where to go?

I am giving you a real life scenario that i experience every year. there are no lanes, nor signs, nor paths, it is a field. how does the AI navigate this?

[removed]

So basically you’re saying ice will no longer form?

>What you mean is...

And we've exited the realm of constructive conversation.

When you are talking to someone, let them tell you what they mean and you tell them what you mean. I will now exit this pointless debate.

It doesnt "infer" it takes textual clues and makes a determination based on a finite vocabulary. it doesnt "know" anything it just matches textual patterns to a predetermined definition. it is really rather simplistic. The reason AI seems so smart is because humans do all of the abstract thinking for them. we boil it down to a concrete thought then we ask it a question. however if you were to tell an AI "go invent the next big thing" it is clueless, impotent, and worthless. AI will help humans achieve great things, but the AI can't achieve great things by itself. that is the important point. it won't do anything on its own, and that is the way people keep framing it.

I can disable an autonomous car by making a salt circle around it or using tiny soccer cones. this proves that the AI doesn't "know" what it is. how do i "explain" to an AI that some things can be driven over and others can't. there is no distinction between salt, painted line, and wall to an AI, all it sees is "obstacle".

Once a cell becomes cancerous, the rapid division facilitates further mutation, providing more targets.

Crispr has been shown to have very few off-target indels when coded correctly.

Nevermind other treatments - if we can get this scaled, this may be the silver bullet we stopped believing in

I found this PNAS paper on CINDELA which is a pretty cool proof of concept but it's still far from being an effective treatment (just like the results of the research from the OP). Their mouse experiments were compelling but a lack of comparison between tumor cells vs healthy cells from the same mouse or patient, plus the short time-frame where they administer their sgRNAs means that we can't know for sure what any off-target effects there might be. Also, since it can take as few as 6 driver mutations to generate a cancerous cell, it may not be possible to find 20+ unique indels specific to the cancer but not found in healthy cells.

It could be a promising treatment in combination with other therapies, but there's still a lot more work to be done before its ready for human trials.

They're working on it in South Korea. Its called the CINDELA program. Not sure what the status is

I would blame the parents. I don't rely on the government to tell me right from wrong.

If someone was handing out cigarettes at a preschool, would you blame the kids for dying of cancer? The blame lies on the shoulders on the government for letting it take place.

While the power density is low, after all the infrastructure is in place the energy is basically free. You wouldn't need to worry much about efficiency (other than heat dissipation) since you have a virtually unlimited source of energy.

> Once we emit about 1000 gigatons of carbon, much of the massive ice sheet will melt irreversibly.

That is not an accurate summary of the paper.

From "Discussion":
> "We find two critical temperature anomaly thresholds above which the equilibrium volume of the GIS decreases non-linearly, at approximately 0.6 and 1.6°C. However, a temporary overshoot of these critical temperature thresholds does not inevitably cause long-term melt of the ice sheet (see Section 3.2). With transient experiments, we find that an equilibrium state of the GIS with smaller ice volume is approached only if the CO2 forcing is applied sufficiently long that the ice volume falls below the values of ΔVA = −0.26 m sle and ΔVC = −2.4 m sle, respectively."

The paper examines this in detail in Section 3.2; in particular, they say:
> "a temporal overshoot of a critical temperature does not necessarily lead to long-term ice loss"

So what does that mean?

What that means is if we reduce our emissions quickly enough, then net CO2 sequestration (from natural sources like silicate weathering as well as possibly from manmade sources such as direct air capture) will reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and hence the temperature, and hence potentially pull us back to the other side of the temperature tipping points before the ice loss tipping point is reached.

So what does that mean?

It means that even "tipping points" operate on geologic time scales, meaning they are generally not irreversible on human time scales. Passing one of the critical temperatures in the paper (1.6C) for 2,000 years would bring irreversible melt; passing it for 20 years would not. As a result, speed of decarbonization matters, regardless of where we are with regard to different tipping points.

Is this done? Do you have any information on it working?

By consciousness I just mean the subjective experience of self. Like the old saying "I think, therefore I am". I can feel and experience the world through my own body and I can assume other people do as well since they're humans just like me (unless I'm living inside a simulation or something and none of you are real). But how do we know a non-biological machine is able to experience the same?

The whole climate has been at a tipping point for the last 30 years but it hasn't tipped. It's all a hoax.

Good point, Cell is the very top tier too, maybe just a tiny shade "below". Though I'd still expect the gigantic paradigm shifting breakthroughs to be targeted to the big two. And by the way nothing wrong with research in other journals, it's just not as likely to be seen - at the time of submission - as earth shattering. Of course, looking back in retrospect lots of great research might be published in smaller journals.

Everyone wants a quick and easy solution but the reality is that this is mainly everyone's fault. Companies pollute alot because of demand for products. Every Amazon delivery, import and export of country good, purchasing clothes every year, new smartphone every 2 years, increase in meat consumption. It's easy to blame private jets, but that's not the only source, thousands of planes fly everyday to delivery goods, ships full of cargo. Want pollution to stop, then stop being a consumer. This also goes for fruits and vegetables cause they also don't grow in one region.

> anything can be a drive through

Then that is a somewhat meaningless question you are asking, right?

Anything that will clue you in can also clue an AI in.

For example the sign that says Drive-Thru.

Which is needed because humans are not psychic and anything can be a drive-through.

> AI requires specifics.

No, neural networks are actually pretty good at vagueness.

> I mean seriously, i can disable an autonomous car with a salt circle.

That is a 2017 story. 5 years old.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1439303480330571780

> “We cannot continue carbon emissions at the same rate for much longer without risking crossing the tipping points,” Höning said.

Interestingly, people already care, they just don't know what to do / feel like they are alone. But the truth is, a record number of us are alarmed about climate change, and more and more are contacting Congress regularly. What's more, is this type of lobbying is starting to pay off. That's why NASA climatologist and climate activist Dr. James Hansen recommends becoming an active volunteer with this group as the most important thing an individual can do on climate change.