ikr, I'm very enthusiast and optimistic about AI, but letting a developing person be influenced by an AI at this level sounds extremely creepy. Even more considering that most users probably won't even know how does the system work.

Aww it looks like the article is too simplified so I don't get what was really achieved without the clickbait, but the paper itself (there doesn't seem to be a link) is probably too complicated to understand.

Can this, for example, change the observed half-life of particles or atoms? That would be very weird (and cool!), so I doubt it.

>Time passes regardless, and it is the physical state that changes

are they not the same? How can you tell if time is going backwards, or cars are just going in reverse?

>To make a system age 10 years in one year, you must get the other nine years from somewhere

So maybe to increase the half life of something, they need to decrease the half life of something else?

Freedom of choice doesn't mean what you think it means. It all comes down to this: you are not entitled to other people's work. Capitalism is in big part the recognition of this hard to swallow but true and ethical principle, that enables peaceful social cooperation.

It's ironic that these anti-capitalist ideas are often rooted in marxism, yet they are contradicting it, because marxism predicted that capitalism would collapse due to decreasing profits, but people are complaining about their increase.

>AI and Capitalism are NOT compatible

you could make the same argument for any form of technological progress. People has done so, and will continue doing so.

edit: the user argued later that his point is true because the capitalist doesn't do any work. That is basically economics terraplanism. No serious economist denies the fact the capitalist is just another link in the chain, who provides useful contributions in the production process. They, among other things, allow the employee to not have to worry about a series of decisions, risks, and responsibilities.

"Individuality" is too generic and can mean too many different things. I'd call it personalized content or something like that.

Did mass production really replace craftmanship? Are nowadays less crafters and artisans in the world?

>Most of us live in fairly repetitive, predictable and derivative ways

Wasn't this also true in the past? What was original about laboring the fields? I imagine nowadays we have more diverse lifes in average, than the average man in the past.

>where it becomes increasingly difficult to find original thought or expression of ideas.

is it? Even if you deliberately go look for them in places like libraries and such? Maybe social media simply isn't meant for that.

>We are, statistically speaking, mostly repetition

That's an interesting debate. Yours is an uncommon position in this sub, because instead of arguing that AI art is unoriginal, you seem to be arguing that humans themselves are as unoriginal as AI. I think people does more than copy-pasting. I think they are able to come up with new ideas by looking at old ones, otherwise society wouldn't have evolved. AIs might be less capable of truly original ideas, but I think they eventually will, and that they do not need to reach that point in order to be extremely useful and produce beautiful images or stories, be them art or not.

>While today we can appreciate and value the effort and creativity of a music artist, very soon more and more music will be synthesized, and in doing so we will value it less

If you think people will actually give less value to machine generated stuff, wouldn't that maintain or even increase a demand for human-made stuff, therefore keeping that activity safe? Yeah, I think that's what you're saying later.

>There will be fewer human artists and craftsmen if there are fewer ways to earn a living

It might be harder to make a living out of art, but that doesn't necessarily mean artists will become more scarse. Maybe more will be able to do it as a hobbie.

No, not really. Starting a company is easier than starting a country.

I know, I just like to discuss these things, and this sub is in part for these sorts of things: how could society work in the future.

Democracy doesn't mean "everyone shall vote on everything". Voting is restricted to a specific series of things or a certain nature. How to run a private business is not one of them.

There are fundamental differences between a company and a government, one can't just say "a company is sort of like a small government".

Nevertheless, in capitalism people are free to create businesses run by "democratic" vote of its members. Usually that doesn't happen simply because for most scenarios such a system turns out to be less efficient, meaning other companies are better at satisfying the consumer.

>Nobody really needs to own one, they sit unused the majority of the time

Most of our stuff sits unused most of the time. Part of their value and usefulness, is the fact they are there, safe and ready to be used when needed.

>The individualist/identity market has further commodified them unnecessarily.

The market is simply the network of people trading stuff. Cars, as lots of things that satisfy our needs, are commodities. By individualist you mean "people do not want to share"?

Look, I'm not saying the current situation is the ideal, but so far, it's around the best most people can do. The market must be free precisely to improve on that situation, once the conditions allow it. There's people constantly trying to come up with a better solution, and those ideas are constantly being "tested" in the market.

AI and other new tech does have the potential to change the paradigm, to enable more efficient use of things that remain unused, without losing the benefit of safety and availability I mentioned before. But that solution doesn't necessarily have to be some sort of communal property. You seem to like to imagine that would be better, but as others said, there are problems with it, that aren't necessarily solved with more tech.

>Ownership and money are closely tied

Because money is a tool to trade more efficiently. Without it, we would have to resort to bartering. Money is not inherently bad, wanting to get rid of it should not be a motivation to eliminate the concept of property. The idea that without money society would be kinder and more organized for the greater good is just a fantasy, that would absolutely not happen. In reality, money is an important component in a system that allows for people to work together: it allows you to work for things that others want (say, making toys), in exchange for things that you want (money from the salary to buy the things you want). The system of prices (which relies on money) is an extremely powerful, decentralized way to transmit information and organize our work at large scale.

"a shift from 'mine' to 'ours'" is too vague, it could very well mean the "everybody owns everything" thing that I mentioned, with its bad results.

In practice, that just means "I am entitled to stealing".

Capitalism is being more and more "checked" (restricted) over time, in most places. Countries are becoming less capitalist.

The concept of ownership is a behaviour that evolved in society as a way to handle the scarcity of resources. "Nobody owns anything" means in reality "everybody owns everything", which results in chaos and wasteful use of resources. Destroying this mechanism would result in an even bigger harm to the planet, and to our quality of life.

More than a million people, according to local media. Heard 2M+ at some time.

Some people actually broke in and did that. There were plenty of damages but for the scale of this, it could have been much worse.

Yes there is. I can stablish a clear boundary between me and my environment, that doesn't mean I don't interact with it.

I can clearly see how "I" am different from "you". We have different thoughts, different needs, different objectives and values. That doesn't mean we can't team up. In fact, in order to efficiently team up, I need to understand that you're different from me, and be able to recognize points in common (and differences), to convince you, to treat you well according to what you expect.

Yeah it's important to understand that individualism is not against teamwork.

why

Just want to point out that individualism does not oppose the fact humans are interconnected and interdependant. It just states that the subject of rights is the individual, that the collective shall not impose itself over it.

>Government/international regulation is going to be needed

it already exists. I guess over time it will become more similar to sea travel

No, the same can't be said about Starship because it is intended to be cheaper than the falcon 9, and we already know that the falcon 9 has enough "routes". It's as if that big plane could also fly the common routes for a cheaper price. That's why Starship is so revolutionary.

Starship is not only bigger, but cheaper. It's RTLS capabilities make it very flexible in some aspects aswell.

edit: well it isn't, it's intended to be. We have yet to see it, but so far the numbers make sense.

I suggested r/spacex precisely because they're very rigorous, so there's little "fanbase bias", if you're looking for serious and informed arguments.

>Starlink is a make work project to give Starship something to do.

Well, if that means getting involved in a trillion dollar business, it looks like a very good use for the starship.

Shotwell was talking about human travel. The non-human space market is much bigger. And she was talking about the present. In the future, with such a railway built and working, things might change a lot.

Elon simply said, paraphrasing, "I want to use starlink to help funding the colonization of mars, and that is at least part of the reason I started starlink". That's clear enough for me. I don't know the specifics but it is not something impossible to do, so I'm not that worried.

If you want to check if there's more info on how Elon's planning to do it, r/spacex is a good source, try asking there.

Anyways, with starlink help or not, fortunately the starship program seems to be well funded for now. After all its a revolutionary rocket, mars bound or not.

Elon just said it would eventually become a public company, I don't think that implies he will lose all involvement in it.

> it would still just be a drop in the bucket.

No, it would be a HUGE boost to the Starship program. And as I said before, once that is working, the market might come in and help a lot with the rest. It's like building a railroad: its cost is small compared to the rest of the town, but that whole town might not have developed without it.

Shotwell's quote is in-line with what I've been telling you. I don't know why you make it look as if that were some sort of intentional misinformation or something.

Fuel production produces waste. Fuel consumption produces CO2. Is now my statement substantiated enough for you? lol