figured Japan would easily have a gundam army by now

Wow impressive

I only asked it it there were any flaws in OP's idea.

Crazy the lengths that people will go to to discount nuclear as a “green” power source.

Global population is projected to decrease

Have you not been paying attention to the news today? It's becoming increasingly clear that top AI labs have finally stumbled upon proto-AGI and are afraid to release it.

They've already invented something moderately useful which will make them trillionaires. Now they are afraid of leasing actually revolutionary because that would fuck everything up. Once it's public knowledge that AGI is possible, it's only a matter of time before more companies produce it and the market for their proto-agi products dries up.

Just like how Google had a decent LLM for years but didn't release it because they were already making a killing in the search engine business. Once you become an industry leader with you don't fire every employee and upend the whole industry.

In 15-20 years things will be so wild

Yeah that might be good option if you are very driven and want to work a lot. I dont and i dont have much interest i those sujects

I agree with you that the Reddit collective seemingly likes to hate the development of hydrogen technologies as though it somehow involves a conspiracy by the oil industry to continue burning fossil fuel. If it turns out that the technology is not competitive, economic, or environmentally friendly, it will eventually fail. But why hate the science and R&D if it’s in pursuit of bettering humanity?

Your second point about government funding isn’t quite correct however. The Spanish Centre for Technological Development and Innovation, CDTI, is a government agency that is providing 12 million Euro in R&D money.

Go to any city. I doubt you did. Infact I'm willing to bet I travel more in a day working or even on my days off then you do. Go outside, sure it's okay for now but it won't be forever if we are not careful. Go spread hate. I'm sure that's what you want from this right?

There's bodies in the streets in poor communities. People dying in waiting rooms. But sure. They are not replaceable. How many humans die a year?

[removed]

It's better to try everything and eventually hit as many jackpots as we can. Plant more trees, Perhaps use this bacteria and probably more solutions.

[removed]

Neither the aircraft manufacturer, nor the engine supplier are clear about the hypersonic engine the plan to build. It seems they’re still in the very early stages of R&D with plans to modify an existing jet engine to burn hydrogen at subsonic speeds. They also still need to design a cryogenic storage system for the liquid hydrogen. They are not using a rocket propellant.

[removed]

Can you close out the email scraper? Actually it’s pretty simple.

Again, it’s just a hypothesis on the root causes of disagreement in debates about the future.

And I don't see the harm in understanding shared values and goals (or where they diverge) BEFORE diving into feasibility concerns.

In fact, while it's not quite the same thing, it's a lot like “BACKCASTING,” a method used in urban planning and other policy discussions. They first establish a shared vision of a desirable future. This takes place BEFORE getting into feasibility concerns.

Then, you work backward from a group-defined ideal outcome. This often leads to better conversation between people from different camps.

I would like to separate it into two discussions for more productive discourse: First, discuss desirability, get agreement, and next, discuss feasibility. I talk about this in my essay, but as usual, I wrote it around an example of someone not finding peace and prosperity desirable, which, the essay explains, is due to fear, selfishness and ignorance. But regardless of why, it’s not about feasibility, he doesn’t WANT it whether it’s feasible or not. But people have a hard time saying what they want, so it’s easier to just argue the feasibility, which is always safely speculative.

This might explain why so much ink is wasted on ENDLESS feasibility discussion and almost no time discussing desirability among the people discussing.

One example, a person who argues that UBI is infeasible, but who deep down just doesn’t like the IDEA of UBI because it’s scary to change and also he doesn’t like how it feels to imagine people getting money for nothing. But instead of saying all this — which is awkward — he rebuts with an endless maze of feasibility problems.

Well not naturally no, I figured with some sort of augmentations ¯_(ツ)_/¯ I think they were trying to use them against cancer cells at one point but I could be wrong

Okay, say this bacteria gets out and starts to convert every bit of carbon dioxide this planet has into plastic. What the shit.

GPT4 made this? What did you ask it?

I was hiking yesterday, it looked pretty nice to me!

Desirabilty = An outcome that benefits.. ? Feasability = Developing an approach that will when applied will bring about the given outcome.. ?

There is something of "one hand clapping" here.

When an discussion occurs there are many motivations to participate. Understanding the topic or the other participants. Agenda support .. detraction .. Personal .. expression of ego .. build . support . teardown. Deal making ..

I did not read your essay because it is behind an email scraper...

But I would like to hear more.

You're never going to get that until there's an AGI that exists. It's a big leap from having a vacuum that goes around your house to a robot that walks around and does chores. It's probably the equivalent of difficulty scale to having a plane vs being able to land on the moon. This is something I'm not surprised doesn't exist.

Is this r/conspiracy or something?

I don’t think weather control is possible. The amount of energy in the weather system is too massive to be able to affect it with any reliability. You’re talking about moving thousands of tons of mass and literal quadrillions of Joules of energy. The amount of energy stored in even a single rain system is almost unimaginable. Humans don’t have a way to control that without incredibly advanced technology.

Ok so instead of China, Russia, NSA, terrorists, and you having AGI, your preference is that only China, Russia, NSA, and terrorists have it?