Recent comments in /f/Futurology

da2Pakaveli t1_jebdr9s wrote

Gotta wonder why so many CDU politicians sit in various supervisory boards of fossil fuel companies? Coal plants were doubled down on and modified. The truth is that Merkel and her party slowed the energy transition drastically because they hate how wind farms make the landscape worse

2

FeloniousReverend t1_jebd0gv wrote

Yeah, and that's what people are choosing to eat. Maybe it's where I live in the PNW and in a foodie area, but monthly I eat elk or bison, and at least a half dozen types fish and seafood, that's without getting into all the imported foods ands flavors from other countries. My point is that people have access to a more diverse amount of food than ever before in history, they just choose not to eat it.

5

Mercurionio t1_jebcy9s wrote

The question is how machine will iterate the stuff. Like, it gets new info about surroundings and add to the code immediately and completely changing it's behavior on the outcome. Or just collects the data and then reprocess words into bigger salad.

Currently, gpt4 can return to original incorrect answers because it keeps iterating the salad until the user is satisfied.

1

Particular-Way-8669 t1_jebcnyt wrote

You signed off those rights away to these sites. Not to OpenAI lol. It is still your IP. You can not go and copy it because you posted it there because you Will be hit with infrigement law suit. Reddit, Facebook, Google received your permission to use it in certain way. And yes Google or Facebook can potentionally claim it used those data fairly for their models. OpenAI? Not a chance.

2

da2Pakaveli t1_jebc8jn wrote

Nuclear isn’t the one solves all solution either. You’re still looking at heat release as surplus thermal energy because a nuclear reactor isn’t better than a coal plant when it comes to degree of efficiency (around ~30%). Only with renewables that won’t happen because the energy in nature would end up as heat anyway because it’s already in the climate system, wether you use it or not.
This should be taken into account when scaling up.
https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/49886

5

Particular-Way-8669 t1_jebc3ih wrote

Everything free to access that is not licensed under copyright friendly IP is by definition IP of the one who put it out. Even if you take picture and put it on Facebook it is your IP. Facebook might have TOS that says they have right to do certain things you post on their site. Sure. But you gave then permission by agreeing to it. OpenAI never received any permission from anyone. Period.

1

JackD4wkins t1_jebbuwn wrote

Immunotherapies are very limited in their applicability. They only work for specific variations of specific cancers...

Transduction efficiency does not need to be 100% on the first attempt. Multiple treatments of even just 50% efficacy result in cure with just 7-8 treatments, without the devastation of chemo or radiation. Nobody requires 100% efficacy from one dose for other treatments, why people place such a high standard on transduction is a mystery to me. "If you can't cure it with one shot, then its not worth doing" is the logic of madness

1

Suolucidir t1_jebbj1y wrote

Yeah, the stuff that Boston Dynamics does on their completely transparent, public channels was already pretty crazy years ago. I am sure it's MUCH further along behind the scenes too.

When we're particularly talking about worker replacement, the job market, and class power shifts, the two things that I am not so sure are 100% dialed in are:

  1. Reliability, and associated risk, of on-the-job android behavior
  2. Affordability of android hardware

I think these two factors are going to have to be VERY polished for investors and C-suite executives to adopt androids in any meaningful, pervasive way.

I know I would need a LOT of internal testing and risk assessments to be completed before I released just 1 semi(or fully)-autonomous android into my warehouse, among real people and expensive product stock - and that's just 1 android. Doing it in multiple locations or in fleets of 10s or 100s or 1000s would only compound my reluctance.

2

InsuranceMan45 t1_jebb42l wrote

The ruling class won’t give up wealth. They don’t pay taxes now, trying to take more will just make them leave or offshore. Increasing wages also means spending more, which increases prices by default. Tax cap elimination will just make people mad. Wealth taxes will make people move money offshore now (look at current millionaires and billionaires). Enforcing it would make them leave. Increasing immigration just kicks the problem down the road to when other countries stop having extra people to give. Immigration also comes with a slew of economic problems, such as keeping wages low and pressure on services. Given that most developed countries are in a demographic crunch now anyway, immigration would be an unacceptable net loss for most countries now anyway, especially if AI develops to take on lower/tier and even higher-tier jobs. A better healthcare system would only make more retirees, stressing the already Ponzi-like nature of social security and other pension systems. Taking more years from the working people isn’t optimal, but it’s one of the few options some countries have unless they want to destroy their pension systems.

1

TreeHawkFeather t1_jebalaq wrote

Ive always been a strong believer that with a high degree of authentic intelligence, a strong emotional intelligence also positively correlates. If a being is better able to process how all things work, then they better understand the perspective from where all things come. Empathy is a product of having a great understanding of your environment and things outside yourself

1

FreeQ t1_jebakzt wrote

Looking at Americans today, the vast majority of meat consumed is Chicken, Beef, Pork and Lamb. And maybe a dozen kinds of vegetables. Contrast that with Native American hunter gatherers who had access to Bison, Elk, Caribou, Deer, Badger, Bear, many kinds of birds and fish and insects not to mention 1000s of wild plants. There's no comparing a man made monocultural system to the diversity of nature.

2