KeaboUltra

KeaboUltra t1_j6svpf0 wrote

Awareness is fine. But this isn't awareness. reading scientific reports, keeping up with activist activity or become one and knowing what we can do to prevent or prepare is more useful than trying to spread fear. Fear is useful but not when it's meant to debilitate. If nothing else, at least allow people to enjoy the time they have.

7

KeaboUltra t1_j6sk691 wrote

right? I hate it. I asked about a hypothetical situation for life extension, specifically asking people to ignore the doom and gloom shit for the sake of a regular discussion but then you get people like "Nope, climate change! Water wars! political greed!" Like I get it, but if its so fucking cemented into the future then what the fuck's the point of talking about it? there's a whole sub for people like that, why not go there instead of trying to defeat people? I'm aware that we have the potential for a messy future but If it happens, it happens. I'm not gonna waste my time bitching while doing nothing about it.

22

KeaboUltra t1_j5i6sga wrote

I remember my mom had nintendo refund a digital DSi purchase after I bought a game without her permission. they refunded her but in turn, my console/account was completely barred from using any credit card. Years later I called them back to try to undo it because I still use the account to this day. I had to explain the reasoning but thankfully was able to undo it.

9

KeaboUltra t1_ivgl87i wrote

you wouldn't. It would possibly be reality in the event non renewables begin running out.

Things like driving may not be as big, especially with energy demand. EVs might be too expensive and people rely on public transport and ridesharing. I could see a universal basic income becoming a thing. If most jobs end up being automated then no one really as to pay for labor. No one would have a reason to work and life would need to change for it to happen. It would defeat the purpose in many peoples lives and possibly further cheapen the human life. Something big's gonna take place this century for sure. because the technology continues to creep into the workforce.

2

KeaboUltra t1_it3f3rg wrote

>All I did was say anyone would thrive regardless of aphantasia or not.

I've sufficiently explained the entire point in my topic in my second reply to you and we circled back to the main point. This isn't about being better or superior, it's a difference between levels of creativity. You simply didn't understand what I meant with aphantasia and I'm not gonna bother reading anything beyond that. You're overblowing it at this point. Later.

1

KeaboUltra t1_it38h5z wrote

>Why would you need to do that tho? Have you not been payning attention to what AI is capable of? It creates music from generic text.

That's the whole damn point dude. No one needs to but I would want to. That's why >>>I<<< would thrive. What's so hard to understand about this? Why would I want to live off of pre-generated text when I can come up with my own shit?

And where do you think the sentence come from to create the art? Imagination, right? People put words and context for the AI to create it yeah? what about things that don't exist? What if I told this AI bot to create a binary solar system, with 6 planets and on one specific planet it rained prismatic shards that cast rainbows everywhere and there were a race of sentient beings known as Cortexians with the who had 7 heads, no eyes, but little hairs that allowed them to "see", ate the rainbows when it rained and lived in reverse. Can you put that in an AI bot? Probably, but it's not going to have any depth. Could any random given person get granular and create something of their own? Probably not. It still takes creativity to feed information into AI. Most people can't write a creative story to save their lives, you act like this stuff just happens in thin air. What are people gonna type into the AI if they don't know where to start?

More importantly Why do you even care this much to argue about some completely imaginary device that doesn't exist? I'm only "over complicating" things because as I clearly stated previously, people thrive on different things.

1

KeaboUltra t1_it3594w wrote

>They wouldn't need imagination or creativity

Clearly people don't need that to thrive, you're generalizing it.. That's outside of the scope of the machine I described that brings your imagination to life. Something that does not work with aphantaisa if they cannot do things as simple as visually imagining a perfect red-yellow gradient colored apple with a green leaf on it, sitting on a clean granite countertop.

What I'm trying to describe here is a device that conjures images in your head rather that words and mental wishes. They could easily look at money and probably conjure it or use someone else's premade template but It would suck to not be able to craft a product of your imagination into reality the same way people make art, hence why I say I and others who can even remotely conjure some random image in their head on a piece of paper would thrive because they could literally make their own world rather than adjusting the one they currently live in. Theses are two kinds of thriving. I wouldn't care about wealth or chilling at a beach or resort or doing things that are possible with money in an imaginary world.

1

KeaboUltra t1_is23yo1 wrote

a long time ago, I asked a question on yahoo answers because I noticed that the computer had auto corrected "kamehameha" with a capital "K". Which made me wonder why it was in a dictionary considering anime terms usually aren't considered in reality. That's when I was informed that it was the name of a Hawaiian king. Even the answerers were surprised about that. Gotta say it's pretty amusing watching people find this out today.

1