As an ethical solution, AI is less likely to 'cull' the rich than it is to just make money/exchange/markets worthless. That way, the rich are no longer rich but they're still alive.

It would just do what it was programmed to do. That's all it would base its "opinions" on.

The problem is we don't know how that simple mechanism works. It took a while for someone to come up with the simple idea of gravity or evolution via natural selection.

[removed]

Well put! To piggy back off your point, I think the persistence issue in it's current state is what will ultimately stop it from taking over too many knowledge worker jobs. The efficiency it currently creates for each current knowledge worker will of course be a threat to employment if production doesn't increase as well, but if history is at all trustworthy, production will increase.

I think the biggest issue right now (outside of data storage) for creating AI that is persistent in it's knowledge is the algorithm to receive and accurately weigh new data on the fly. You could say it's the algorithm for wisdom, even.

> They also plan to store weeks worth of clean fuels.

They plan, some time, maybe, somehow.

Nuclear works now. There's also a way to have cheap, nearly free nuclear: not fucking closing perfectly working plants.

I can't help but think it would be easier to get water in basically any other way

Your whole premise predicated on the idea that AGI is even a potential outcome from it.

Your logic was built on fundamental misunderstandings and presuppositions that the outcome was a possibility.

Don't get mad at people for pointing out your flaws.

LLM is just a bunch of statistics, and it can't generate anything new.

The unsolved problem of human cognition/AGI has always been that it has the ability to solve a problem that it has not been able to solve before. I.e., creativity.

Redistribution of wealth and governmental restructuring have almost always come as a result of violent revolution. I worry a lot about what a true revolution would mean for the US with the destructive capabilities of modern weapons.

Right, and screw the market, the customers, and actual demand. A bunch of unelected technocrats in Brussels will ... control the market. Great. Thank God Britan got out of that.

But the whole argument requires picking and choosing your stance, so you're choosing to base it off an average family or four in the US as opposed to a generic "hunter-gatherer of North America," apparently from the north/northwestern region. There were periods long before they could hunt large game, and there are groups today, such as the Inuit, that have extremely limited traditional diets in regard to biodiversity if you don't include the influx of modern foods.

I'm just taking exception to the often-stated but not well-defined stance that hunter-gatherers of specific yet undetermined locations and time periods had such impressively diverse diets compared to modern times.

Renewable-based systems will be much larger than just wind and solar farms. They also plan to store weeks worth of clean fuels.

I'm pointing you to real time data from right now, where nuclear produces dozens of actual gigawatt of carbon-free power and wind+solar sucks and fails to meet demand that has to be covered by gas and coal, but hey, don't let facts get in the way of your pie in the sky schemes where solar makes sense in Northern Europe and anticyclonic events don't affect the whole continent.

Also re levelized cost of electricity, do you know what the lowest sell PRICE of that wonderful Danish wind power is on the market? It's almost 0€. Not because it's cheap, but because it's next to worthless when there's plenty of wind as there's too much supply and nothing to do with it. And you know what the Danes have to do when there's no wind? They have to buy hydro from Norway at outrageous prices, because there's huge demand.

My point? The levelized cost of intermittent renewables WITHOUT pricing in storage or alternatives is just a fucking lie. Nuclear does the job, it's doing the job right now.

Every time I mention this and tell people their fearmongering is unnecessary, I get a dozen idiots saying I'm wrong. This sub isn't worth debating anyone in, just allow the same ~1k boomer doomers to jack eachother off, at least they have a quarantined little bubble to do it in.

I can explain any big words for you. What part did you not understand?

In general the point is a question. Ok, two. Why should it be necessary for population to increase for a society to be healthy? Why does a stable birth rate not work?

[removed]

Um, no. Won’t use it, don’t want it. We barely shop at Panera anymore because they can’t get our orders right, always something missing, this will cause our family to stop altogether.

Im a bit jealous of a functional government that isn't completely captured by corporate and can come together and enact basic--makes sense laws and agreements that do better and help everyone

​

fuck

> they just choose not to eat it

I do get your sentiment but consider that for a lot of people it's not choice, they simply can't afford those more expensive foods.

For example bison meat where I live is about $10USD per lb. If you're trying to feed a family of 4 on a budget, ground beef at less than half that price looks a lot better.

AI will be extorted just like we extorted the earth.

It wouldn't give a fuck.

AIs are neither superheroes nor gods, they are tools that only exist to learn how to do a job and then do it in the best way it can. They don't care about anything else.

Now, who would decide what job should said AI perform? And what job would it be? And who is going to train it? That's the real question.

Yes, and I think this reflects an interesting "environmental" difference experienced by humans and AIs.

Complex living creatures (like humans) exist for a long time in a changing world, and so they need to continuously learn and adapt to change. Now, to some extent, we do follow the model of, "Spend N years getting trained and then M years reaping the benefit", but that's only a subtle shift in emphasis, not a black-and-white thing as for ML training vs. inference.

In contrast, AI developed largely for short-term, high-volume applications. In that setting, it makes sense to spend spend a lot of upfront time on training, because you're going to effectively clone the thing and run it a billion times, amortizing the training cost. And giving it continuous learning ability isn't that useful, because each application lasts only minutes, seconds, or even milliseconds.

Making persistent AI that continuously learns and remembers seems like a cool problem! I'm sure this will require some new ideas, but with the number of smart people now engaged in the area, I bet those will come quickly-- if there's sufficient market demand. An I can believe that there might be...

What do you think search engines need to do to give you the results?

So this has absolutely nothing to do with the collapse of the petro dollar?