I have always found it ironic that the more advanced we get the less we see of the sky

https://www.samsung.com/sg/lifestyle-tvs/the-frame/ls03a-43-inch-the-frame-art-mode-4k-smart-tv-black-qa43ls03aakxxs/?cid=sg_pd_ppc_google_lifestyle-tv_always-on_lifetstyletvbrand_text-ad_none_none_lifetstyletvbrand_samsungtheframe-rsa2&gbraid=0AAAAADo9MBnFtCXE63xvcFcN8Ma7ErStZ&gbraid=0AAAAADo9MBnFtCXE63xvcFcN8Ma7ErStZ&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjdKMgdzK_AIVAw4rCh1QYQ4REAAYASAAEgJe1PD_BwE

I can change the painting depending on my mood. Why would I ever need to print it out/paint it.

Except in the current education system that ranks everyone, someone’s got to be the bottom 50% and have less opportunity or smarts to do any of those jobs you are talking about. And when half the system is struggling, the whole system falls apart.

A painter is not safe at all, I can generate AI images by the thousands and use another AI to correct and fill in gaps without even lifting a brush. An AI generated art just won a competition and another human got discredited for art looking like AI generated art.

Define worse because soft drinks and junk food are cheaper now but education, housing and healthcare are way more expensive now.

It’s a different paradigm shift because pcs were used to store and calculate whereas AI is starting to make decisions and independently generate content. A business owner can’t just own computers without operators but he can own multiple AIs who don’t rest, who are smarter, who make less mistakes, who are cheaper.

Just 4 years ago I wrote a quora reply to the question “what jobs would be safe from AI” and someone said artists and I disagreed. Today we see AI winning art competitions and other human artists discredited because it looks like AI generated art. I can literally use AI to generate art then use a different AI to fill in gaps. The value of human generated art is plummeting when a dude can generate 1000 amazing art pieces in a day.

Eventually, there needs to be an AI tax and dividend or there won’t be any consumers left. Either that or a revolt’s happening. It’s a snake eating its own tail where we can produce unlimited products but no one that can afford it.

I think it’s our inability to fathom the infinite. The way I think about it is to imagine our universe as an atom and the other universes are atoms beside it.

Biggest difference imo is Quantum is analog(continuous) while classic computing is digital(discrete).

This mean quantum computing can potentially model the real world but classic computing can only ever be an abstraction at best.

Classical computing will still be better in terms of energy tradeoff to calculate discrete problems like simple decision making, but quantum will be better for real world modelling like pathfinding where all paths can be considered at once.

How I would explain it is if you turn on a smoke machine in a maze, the smoke will spread and try all paths at once and the edge of the smoke and hence the whole smoke will always know whether it found an exit. This is like quantum. Whereas classical computing is like have multiple people trying all routes but they still have to come back to each other before they all know where the exit is.

Precisely. So most people won’t care who’s the defacto leader

Sure there would be many people who would be against it but there would also be many people who would be up for. What makes you think you aren’t already owned.

Even Christopher Columbus had to return to his sponsor Spain. But this is a one way ticket. If a regular joe like me can see it’s a bad investment without rules, a potential generational ship sponsor will avoid it like a plague. Fact is, the only reason why a company would do it is because they would be able to set up sovereignty in a new place/planet.

If that’s is true then there’s no value for governments or companies to try to build them in the first place because they would be literally throwing money into space.

If that’s is true then there’s no value for governments or companies to try to build them in the first place because they would be literally throwing money into space.

We will snuff out the sun before that. The sun is like a super nuclear power station.

Even before they land they need to be genetically modified to survive long periods of space travel when bone and body growth is affected by the lack of gravity.

I think choosing who to go is the last thing to consider and when we are ready to choose the choice itself would no longer be relevant.

There’s so many things that can go wrong in the vastness of space. Storms, meteorites, solar flares, your ship is completely exposed to the harshness of space and there’s no way out if something goes wrong.

I think what makes more sense is like a generational convoy travelling a fair distance away from each other, and people set up stations on planets along the way in case there’s an unforseen scenario.

I think food printing needs to be invented. I think VR needs to be fully realistic and immersive. Kinda like what’s possible in the orville. I think society’s mindset needs to have a giant shift.

I think choosing people shouldn’t be important. There should be everything sufficient in order for any kind of person to go. For example robots/cybernetic enhancements/ genetic modification. There needs to be a legal system and a way to enforce laws. I think general space travel should already be common prior.

I think it will likely be fully privatised or an international effort because there’s no way to prevent the future generation from just seceding. Any attempt to send ships to go after them will also risk those seceding. Therefore it’s never a worthwhile venture for any government.

Oh you don’t need a sentient AI. Just a competent regular one will do. Just like how Amazon can already undercut competitors by selling just a little under what their users are selling by learning from transaction behaviour.

I have a theory about this. The only way to know true AGI is here is if they are actual participants in the economy, that means not only just consuming resources to sustain themselves but being able to desire goods and services. If not it’s just sophisticated code. This probably has complications that would require AI rights. We would reach Super-ai without actually reaching AGI.

The only fear I have is the super rich owning super-ai and devaluing human labor causing a snake eating its own tail scenario. AI can have near-infinite production but if no one can afford it then the value of that production is actually zero.

I am probably leaning more towards cybernetics as the economy can still function. Anything other scenario the economy or society would collapse and self-destruct before any dystopian AI develops

Survivor bias