KeaboUltra t1_jecj1ng wrote

I think that really depends on the field. I WFH and of course, It's computer based. When I worked in IT there was literally nothing taught hands on to me. Just videos and a guy that really sucked at communicating my job expectations, Within days I was thrown live into the mix of things I didn't even understand, and I made it out after 2 years with a ton of knowledge sure, but It was honestly knowledge I always had, I was being paid entry/min level wage for level 2 work.

Now, at my remote job, They actually taught us. despite being remote, we could still help out or have hands on experience with something. At least what I do. I feel like I've been working here for my whole life, in a good way, because the work feels like the type of person I am. I actually know things and help out and am informative, and looking to improve way more than I did in a corporate IT cubicle, where I didn't fully understand how anything worked or why we were even doing what we we're doing considering my position didn't really even exist, I would usually finish most of my work in 2-6 hours then be told to do things that weren't in my description, or sit around passing the time in pure white fluorescent light.. Anything I learned could have been taught over the phone or in a remote session.


KeaboUltra t1_jbyh4qd wrote

Assuming that we do get UBI, I think not. People will always want to fill their time with something, and work would become a choice. After the world is no longer in denial about AI taking every job. work will probably become more social and volunteer oriented. I feel like people might want to employ gig style work for more simple things. It's honestly hard to say what people will be doing as an AI or something might be able to handle it better and more efficiently, but off the top of my head, I can imagine online human surveys and user input might be valuable, any data that can make something better. Reviews might become more valuable and we could see a world extremely similar to that black mirror episode where people's ratings dictated their social status. Could be possible that being a "decent" or "model" person nets you more UBI, in which you get rated for committing good acts, each rating contributes to a rank and entering a new rank or earning a new star = a higher UBI to fuel more luxury spending. Things such as holding a door open for someone or cleaning up your environment would contribute to these things. I know all this sounds pointless but that'll kinda become our existence during the dawn of a competent AI, we'll have nothing to do that we'll literally have to come up with a new way to carry on in society based off what we currently have.


KeaboUltra t1_ja829kd wrote

Yes. If it could think independently, there are multiple outcomes in which it would appreciate its creator just as there are ways that it would not, or outright hate. Its affection probably wouldn't be recognizable as it's a machine with a completely different perception and cognitive ability. but that doesn't mean It couldn't find a way to communicate that to you. It's an AGI, modeled to human likeness. the thing would be smart or make itself smart. Analyze how humans behave, human speech, and emotion, to learn how and try to convey that to you the same way we try to do that with animals. People sometimes pretend to act like an animal based off what we learned about them, or learn what an animal likes so that they can express it.


>We keep sheep for what they provide for us and, moreover, we exterminate bugs that we find disgusting.

It's not as black and white, you can say the same thing about cows, pigs, chicken or any other animal eaten or used for its byproducts. Not everyone treats pet animals well. If someone saw a random sheep in a farm, they would probably pet it and treat it nicely. bugs are the same, we exterminate them because they are pests that destroy your home or get into your food, yet people keep or admire all sorts of insects like butterflies, caterpillars, beetles, ants, etc. It's all really a dice roll whether AI is kind, mean, indifferent, or just like us.


KeaboUltra t1_ja68jun wrote

GPT is an Artificial Narrow Intelligence. as it self proclaims. IMO, I personally categorize it as a very simple AGI. It has general intelligence in the sense that you can ask it to do something and it'll do a "human" job at it. that is to say, flawed until you correct it. I don't think AGI need to be conscious and aware of what it's thinking or doing. IMO, that's something between AGI and ASI. Putting ChatGPT into a robot and Mapping it to allow it to control it to do manual tasks is the next great step IMO. the "dumb" AI such as Google home, Lidar Roombas, and such will likely combine into one device or specialize device that controls all devices. the way cgpt can create code, a more efficient and mature version of it might be able to impliment that code externally to program other devices to get it to do a task you specifically wanted it to do. So for example, you can ask your bot to make your smart lights blink if you get a text message for the night, you could normally set up an IFTTT routine to do it, but I think in the future, AI will have the ability to create them for you and plug the command into any device compatible with it, and we can already see the beginnings of it. I think some people have already made Chat GPT control their smart lights. theres also a brand out there called "matter" which is trying to make all smart devices compatible using one software so people don't have to sign up with multiple websites/apps just to control them.

In the future, I think we'll see chatgpt/AI manipulate things in the real world. not just toss you computer frontend/backend code and answer random questions or prompt, to get them to do things more useful than their original purpose. IFTTT and AI will merge


KeaboUltra t1_ja62aft wrote

that's what people probably thought about the internet. something Geeks only used and it didn't threaten anything until whoops, who reads newspapers, uses beepers, or does most things that don't involve the internet anymore. We are so ingrained with the internet that if we lost it, society will collapse. AI has the same potential. it took 20 years for the internet to change the world, how long do you think it'll take an AI, a technology based on automation and efficiency, to completely take over our lives? ChatGPT came out December 2022 and already being used in multiple fields of the world. It isn't even properly trained or completely accurate yet. It will be but if something so infantile can cause this much of a ruckus, then it's maturity will be devastating.


KeaboUltra t1_ja37e24 wrote

Nor are you because not once have I said or thought blowing up the planet wasn't capable of that. You're hyper focused on destruction, saying that none of our current projects are meaningful and all I'm literally telling you is that humanity is already making steps towards making significant strides onto being a space faring species no matter how much capacity we have for destruction and irrelevant to what you deem significant. Humanity has plenty of potential until we blow up, just as we have plenty potential to advance. Has it happened yet? It makes zero sense to be completely on either side when we would likely achieve significant progress (that is to say ANY space colony, inner planet or just between earth and the moon) whether humanity peacefully or violently reaches that reality. It random chance, with supporting facts and evidence that drives people to believe what we're capable of in the near future but it's like you want the world to blow up, why? Because only you know what the future holds? You, someone who seriously thinks climate change will really be about who bakes or drowns? How can I care to read the full extent of your post when the majority of your points is under researched hyped up doomerism? You brought up an interesting perspective initially and all I wanted was to provide differing perspectives surrounding a similar position yet you all have the same panicky, anxiety induced hopeless responses about the world as if human depravity and destruction is new, yet here we are talking wirelessly on a web forum, waiting to see which country establishes a moon base first.


KeaboUltra t1_ja1hcw4 wrote

And what does any of that have to do with being unable to achieve a future of space travel in any meaningful way? What does meaningful mean to you vs humanity? You talked about how we cant get big projects off the ground due to no funding yet we've already managed to complete step 1 of 3 on the artemis mission after shooting JWST into orbit among other space related missions. those are pretty significant. in a time frame of 27 years, I don't think anyone's expecting to be on Mars or Venus levels of significant, let alone travelling out of the solar system unless it was just a probe but the beginnings of a moon base are significant none the less.

Back when you said:

>ATM, I see nothing more than small stuff in the inner planets. Mostly military buildup over Terra and lots of science. Maybe a billionaire hotel somewhere pretty


>Not gonna be a lot of space travel except military, science and industrial concerns.

Is exactly what I'm talking about. A research facility on the moon or even military activity is significant. None of that is small. And when these things start, it will be what allows us to travel further into space as it becomes the norm throughout society from 2050 and beyond. Anything more than what we currently have on the moon is significant, but the perspective I'm adding is that this is what will be what pushes humanity in a direction to have the mindset you claim we wouldn't get unless we worked together, the more we ingrain local space faring, the more our society advances in that direction, not because we'll be more mature, but because of what it has to offer to humanity.


KeaboUltra t1_j9zut7d wrote

>Not without significant and probably violent change. So as to the very original question....

That's the point of what I'm saying. Significant, and or violent changes happen through progress, it doesn't matter if the progress is positive or negative, unless the negative is completely catastrophic to the entire planet at a point were life can no longer be possible. Violence doesn't necessarily mean technological regression as seen with the atomic bomb. These changes don't have to originate from society to affect society. Society is forced to accept whatever we're given. If man successfully lands on the moon and a base is made. that's already significant enough. There are already missions surrounding it, if we get people on the moon by 2030, then OPs question becomes what does space travel look like in 20 years after an established moon base. If we were doing nothing at all with space as a species, then I'd have your POV, but the internet, GPS, JWST, space probes, star link, rovers and much others all show that the interest is there and it's a matter of when this happens, and who makes it there first. As things fall into place, peacefully or violently, humanity will adapt to a society that utilizes space travel, even if it's only between the moon and earth for the next 30-50 years. That in itself is significant enough because our affairs will not only affect earth, and a proper moon base would serve to supplement earth with resources, energy, a celestial community, assisted research and more. Having a successful Artemis 3 mission before 2030, and other countries pushing to reach the moon first makes this even more tangible, because it all starts with progress.


KeaboUltra t1_j9zprdh wrote

I cant agree with this considering the internet was a pretty big change and happened within our lifetime. Automation, combined with robotics will allow us to refine the manual world we're still transitioning from. This would be near the same level of shift as electricity had on the world. instead of people using electricity to power things and create a lot of QoL improvements (also the destruction of certain industries) so will AI automation as it becomes more refined. Despite that, I do understand your POV. I just think what constitutes as "trash" really depends on the focus of society.

People collaborate in large constitutions today all thanks to the interconnected world we now live in for the last 25-30 years. People collaborated in the past, but it's not like they could submit findings and results, etc in a digital archive and discuss them remotely and have world wide information in the palm of their hands


KeaboUltra t1_j9zohef wrote

20-30 years ago people couldn't listen to music wirelessly unless they had a portable cassette player, tape, and headphones. Today, you can have access to seemingly limitless music from around the world and wirelessly beam the audio to a pair of wireless earbuds that are about the size of a dime. 5 years ago, people couldn't ask an AI to code something for them and fix the errors, now it do all that, at the level of a flawed intermediate level programmer, nor has it reached its potential yet, minimalizing a job that normally takes time to do.

Although technology focuses more on refining, people mistake that and think the evolution of tech is minimal when it literally means technology quickly evolves.


KeaboUltra t1_j9zmto2 wrote

Again, to repeat what I said simply. Humanity will not decide to be ready for space colonization. Nothing I'm saying to you is in opposition except to say that we will never collectively decide to change society, society will change around what we do, don't do, or achieve, therefore there's equal potential of everything. instead of trying to label me things you could just accept it as an opinion, there's no need to get agitated. I'm not arguing with you over whether or not we will overcome anything we're dealing with, optimism has nothing to do with it. I'm saying we wont be in that mindset unless the wheels of general progress hit the ground rolling, which they're already doing.

Also, you're looking at the world in black and white if you think the question boils down to who bakes or drowns first. Climate change isn't about that, It's about a changing climate that threatens how we've become accustomed to the water and environments around us that we base our society on, and the animals/humans that will suffer for it. humanity can manage the changing climate and heat, but the strife this will bring is the danger. nevertheless, that doesn't stifle human progress until a nuke, asteroid, or EMP is dropped on our heads, until that happens, an impeding moon base or a breakthrough in technology is all that's keeping us from utilizing extraterrestrial space and what with this seemingly renewed space race and activity, we could be in the beginnings of that change. Humanity doesn't need to collectively change and do better no more than the early settlers and colonizers didn't need to work together to travel the sea or explore otherwise uncharted territory.


KeaboUltra t1_j9m9d8f wrote

I don't think you know what I meant in my response to you saying "we won't be able to get off this planet in any significant way, until humanity develops a social structure different and a bit more politically advanced." Us being fucked is possible, I'm not ruling that out, but Humanity doesn't decide anything. I don't think we would even begin to be able to do that until we become a type 1 civilization, until then, we're bound by Human/Nature. We grow around whatever life changing discoveries or revolutions we make, base off how humanity is hardwired to adapt. There are obviously things that could prevent growth, but I just believe that it won't happen until it randomly happens, we're in a perpetual state of being fucked and based on where we are, technologically, until your proposed mindset happens. We don't have to do anything spectacular outside of our capabilities, except refine and prove the things we have until we eventually hit a turning point, things like the world wars, the space race, or the internet and now, interest in AI and AR/VR.

Humanity wont be able to congregate and decide as a whole. We develop around whatever gets dropped onto us. A choice will be made and people will live on the moon, or start some sort of colony in space in a near earth orbit, whether that choice is made in effort to keep the advantage over geopolitical enemies and influence their will, or for the sake and benefit of humanity, science and our curiosity. This, especially if Artemis 2 and 3 are successful. The amount of difference that makes is enormous. in 27 years, that base could become a manufacturing facility with a bigger crew, and new technologies to develop in that time, just as the internet practically changed how the world communicated in 15-30 years and the explosion of smart phones, homes, and other devices. travel could be made easier with residential space station hotels, as you mention, then a technology is developed to launch smaller crafts for trips around the earth, maybe for faster long range shipping, or a "trip" you could take, and more important trips to the moon for research without having to launch heavy rockets on earth. Money could be made with that commercially.

As the technology gets more efficient, it gets easier to send things to and from a moon base. Maybe using solar sails or utilizing fuel more efficiently due to lower to no gravity. in time their technologies and communities grow. We may not be space travelling actively but this scenario is possible, but depending on if technologies like chatGPT and robotics develop to be more reliable and accurate, it's possible in 27-30 years to have stuff like this completely automated, if not more than we expect. It would force humanity to think differently, it really just depends on what scalable discoveries we make, because as we start implementing them, the world will change bit by bit, as laws are made and the technologies made commercially in these advancements inevitably puts us in that mindset.. The world thinks radically different already than it did 50-70 years ago, even if a lot of people still live in the past.. The world in general is different, society itself would probably break down or at least grind to a halt if access to the internet just disappeared in todays world, especially as younger people who deal with automated things likely wont have manual knowledge, or how company identities and worldwide services fully exist on the internet. Imagine how short a change could take when now the world is connected by the internet? Stuff like that can happen any moment.

I understand what you see, and why you think that way, I'm simply expressing a differing perspective.


KeaboUltra t1_j9kw1h8 wrote

I disagree, I dont think a "social structure different and a bit more politically advanced" will happen unless we find ourselves in space first, and develop calendars, time, and laws that work for an environment that doesn't utilize these things. This may come about in a lunar colony, the likes of what we're seeing with the moonbase space race with artemis. we may not see anything immediate but I think this is the recipe. I think going to the moon, for residency and work with regular trips to Mars the way we treated the moon would be significant enough for the next century to begin making their way to other planets.