Need energy to convert the algae into anything, need good yields, and then if you burn it’s just back into the air as co2. There is a reason that all the big investors in algae to biofuels have given up, they don’t produce enough fatty oils per gram to make it cost effective. It could be work and be useful but it’s still really far from being productive enough to continue developing the technology. It’s just tough to engineer really old organisms to do things they don’t do naturally at the levels we need to be productive. Modern efforts are moving to electric vehicles and away from combustion. The future is boats and planes burning fuel and cars and trucks running electric.

[removed]

I've seen this coming for a long time. If foreign countries have no qualms meddling in politics in foreign countries via SoME bots, why would they stop at fake videos with fake voices? And it doesn't even have to be foreign actors meddling in elections. We see more and more attempts of phishing via emails, phone calls and messages. And unless we see serious measures to have fake videos, voices and photos marked as being fake, the consequences could be chaos in so many areas that it could pose a threat to entire communities.

How old is Ray Kurzweil now again? As much as I want this to be true I unfortunately think his remaining natural lifespan is biasing him.

[removed]

[removed]

The last people to acknowledge that an AGI is actually AGI will be its creators. When Garry Kasparov played Deep Blue, he saw within it a deep sort of human intelligence; insight that said more than the chess AIs he was used to. Deep Blue's creators did not appreciate the chess genius it was capable of, because they were not brilliant chess players. Under a microscope, a human brain does not look very intelligent. So too will the creators of AGI deny its real intelligence, because they know its artificiality and foibles more than anyone.

It reads like someone gave ChatGPT the prompt, Ted Kaczynski cutting a wrestling promo to own the libs.

Automatic nail clippers. Like with lasers or something.

Probably mostly wind and solar by 2035? As well as nukes in France? And gas to fill remaining gaps, if any. (And even if it was exclusively gas, it’d still be a huge win for reducing emissions compared to having ICEs in every car.)

[removed]

It’s like ChapGPT on really shitty acid.

Bad acid. Bad trip. Bad OP.

[removed]

Potentially, you could grow anything, anytime, anywhere. And you would not have to do it in city center, even a bit outside suburbs would lead to substantial gains in term of transportation. Reduction in farming land space could lead to major changes for leaving space.

I think it does not change because land and fuel are still dirt cheap relative to the sale price of vegetables and fruits. Climate change, insect population dropping could lead to more development, but I would be immensely reassured to have it developed way sooner.

Flying cars??? This one always annoys me because isn't that a plane? It's just that most are like flying buses and trucks. So bulk transport.

Unless you can fully automate flying it's not gonna happen. Too many drivers do dumb stuff all the time dealing only with forward, back, left and right. I wouldn't trust many people to be able to manage up and down as well, without serious training, like a pilot does. I think a lot would never be able to learn it at all.

They would also have to be quiet. Planes are so noisy and having them landing up and down the street all day would be God awful noise pollution

Speaking of microwaves, how about a microwave oven that doesn't suck?

> its super bad for males on a hormonal level

citation needed

Where will the power come from? Seeing how busy they've been shutting down power plants, that is.

[removed]

[removed]

That's precisely what I've been trying to say. Maybe less eloquently. My definition involves the experience element, so I follow that line of logic.

I asked chat GPT if it has a sense of humor and it responded with: "A sense of humor refers to the ability to appreciate and find humor in situations, experiences, or verbal expressions. It can involve making others laugh, finding amusement in things that others might not, and being able to laugh at oneself.

As an artificial intelligence language model, I don't have the capacity to experience emotions or find things humorous in the way humans do. However, I am programmed to understand and generate jokes, puns, and other forms of humor that humans enjoy."

Nuclear Fusion. When it was about making a nuke, they gathered fantastic resources and went from Science-Fiction to explosion in 4 years. When it come to saving humanity with nuclear fusion, relative to our current capabilities, there only are relatively small attempts on-going for 40 years. ITER, the most serious attempt, get a budget of $1B a year, a 1000th of US military budget alone.

[removed]

But oil isn't energy, the combustion creates the energy. Petroleum is just fuel.

And I called hydrogen fuel. Because that's what it is. Fuel is a method of storing chemical energy.

Most things we call energy are actually just storing energy. When we're talking about energy we're not talking about something as mundane solar power generation, turning turbines or internal combustion.

ChatGPT takes the middle ground on this question:

Me: Suppose a machine was able to accurately identify all aromas. Independent of how it was able to achieve that, would it be reasonable for humans to observe that the "machine can smell?"

GPT: It would depend on how one defines the term "smell." If we define "smell" as the ability to detect and identify odors, then a machine that is able to accurately identify all aromas could be considered to "smell" in a technical sense. However, if we define "smell" as a sensory experience that is unique to humans and other animals, then it would not be accurate to say that a machine can "smell" in the same way that humans can.
The ability to detect and identify odors is just one aspect of the complex sensory experience of smell that humans and animals have. Smell involves not only the detection of odor molecules but also the processing of this information by the brain to create a perception of smell that is unique to each individual. This involves the integration of multiple sensory inputs and the interpretation of this information in the context of past experiences and memories.
Therefore, while a machine may be able to identify odors with great accuracy, it cannot replicate the full sensory experience of smell that humans and animals have. So, while it may be technically accurate to say that a machine can "smell" in a limited sense, it would be important to clarify what we mean by the term and recognize the differences between a machine's ability to identify odors and the complex sensory experience of smell that humans and animals have.