izumi3682 OP t1_j3oyocz wrote

Well, my point is that we are going to remove mental illness and psychiatric disorders from the world. Consider those who are born deaf. Or those who are born with Down's Syndrome. We are also going to remove pretty much any kind of pathological or congenital condition from the human race. And in less than 20 years, if that, to boot.

So there are those, and they are significant percentage, of people who are congenitally deaf or have Down's Syndrome that believe that they are perfectly happy and normal people. That what they experience is not any kind of a defect at all. Here is the problem with that. It doesn't matter. Technology will come into existence, that will eliminate such pathology from the human race. Whether these communities want to accept such treatment is on them.

I saw something that made me almost laugh out loud in a "you've got to be kidding me!", laugh. There is this movie, it's called "The Immortals" "Eternals" I think. In this movie, Hollywood has overlaid certain kinds of thinking that is popular in US society today. Specifically, diversity and inclusion. I mean I'm all on board with that. But there was one character that just made me laugh out loud. It was an "immortal" "Eternal" who apparently came into existence deaf/mute. Really? An immortal realized deaf/mute? I think we've jumped the shark here.

No sir, here is what is actually coming down the pike. And super soon to boot.


Also one of the points that I was trying to make in my submission statement is that the AI is going to transcend all of human creativity. It's already begun. Wait until the first AI made movies are produced within minutes from a prompt by a human. Or an AI produced "alt-rock" song is produced in seconds by a prompt from a human. People just tell the machine what they want, and the machine delivers it. Whither human artists?


izumi3682 OP t1_j3kamhe wrote

You changed your response mr legends. Unfortunately for you, all reddit responses go to my email. So I have your original response, before you changed it.


u/LegendaryPlayboy replied to your comment in r/Futurology · u/LegendaryPlayboy · 1 votes People don't have a clue what is coming...? Ask me anything.


izumi3682 OP t1_j3hhp7n wrote

Well, I mostly meant thems outside of rslashfuturology. But since you offer. I do have a few questions.

What year will prices for everything drop precipitously as a "post-scarcity" economy takes hold in the USA? Alternatively, when will UBI be available in the USA?

What year will the first AI generated hit alt-rock song come to be. By this I mean that no humans are involved in any of the production to include composition, voice(s) and instrumentals. Think a "Chatgpt" to make music on demand.

What year will humans no longer go to flight school, medical school or law school, because the ARA, that is computing derived AI, robotics and automation, will be able to do it all. Consider this.


What year will nuclear fusion technology enter the grid? Did you know that we just launched a satellite to investigate the probability that we can exploit solar energy from space? What year will humanity become a "type 1" Kardashev civilization? Meaning, all necessary energy is derived from the sun or from the engine of stars.

What year will the first human dedicated aging reversal technology become available for humans? And an ancillary question to that. Who determines who gets aging reversal technology? Will only the rich live forever? Will the nursing homes be filled with those who cannot afford aging reversal technologies. And how will that go over with the mewling mass of humanity (Read: Me)

What do you think GPT-4 is going to bring to the table for humanity? It comes out early this year you know.

And what year do you believe a "technological singularity" will occur? My answer is all of these with the exception of the schooling for certain professions, will occur before the year 2030. Most between 2026 and 2028. The schooling may continue as late as 2035, but then it too will be gone. Why do you need a doctor, a lawyer or a flight school when the ARA does it all. And around the year 2035, all humans will be able to "do it all".

I think I got a clue what is coming. What do you think of this?


Ask me anything! ;)


izumi3682 OP t1_j3g5aqy wrote

Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes, and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.

From the article.

>This phenomenon — of some people preferring robots (in this case, an apparently-neutral robot over an opinionated human) becomes more important as we enter an era of AI-enabled robots. And it may partly explain why AI-enabled robots enjoy public support despite warning from prominent figures ranging from Henry Kissinger to former Google boss Eric Schmidt about the risks of unfettered AI. If someone suspects that opinionated-humans in authority intend to do them or their family harm, then that person will probably prefer an apparently neutral, AI-enabled robot over an obviously bigoted human.

And this truly telling finish...

>If any one thing is clear, it is that we are intellectually unprepared for both this era and the debate that it will spur.

People do not have a clue what is coming. But they will all know about the year 2025 when true, albeit limited AGI comes into existence. But that AGI will not stay limited for long. By the year 2028 it will quite complex indeed. And once that happens ASI is very close to realization. And that would constitute a TS. I place it about the year 2029, give or take two years.

Absolutely around the mid decade there will be legislation attempting to roll back the power of AI, but it will be far too little, far too late. In fact right now today, the Europeans are attempting legislation to control the development of AI. Sorry, that cat is already out the bag.

I hope it all goes well for us. I think it will.

Tangentially related. This is about how humans will come to prefer AI "creativity" to that of "inferior" humans.


And that leads me to another consideration. What happens when we remove mental illness and psychiatric disorders from the the world? Have you ever read a poem by Sylvia Plath? Have you ever remarked on the unusual beauty of a Van Gogh painting. Did you like the band "Nirvana", or Amy Winehouse? It is that kind of "defect" in human cognition that brings about the transcendent forms of art that evokes such an amazing resonance in us, the observer or listener. The same thing that makes a human crazier than a shit-house rat, is also the same thing that makes that human a genius. Especially an expressive genius.

The 100K question then is, will we miss that? Do we really want to give it up? Mental illness and psychiatric disorders hurt. I imagine everyone wants to take those agonies away. Right?


izumi3682 OP t1_ixkchde wrote

I think there is a small chance that you are right, but a far more vast chance that you are wrong. I don't think anything is going to "cap" any longer. No more AI winters ever again. Further, this is the reason I am fairly confident that a 'human unfriendly' (that is the computing and computing derived AI will be external from the human mind) "technological singularity" is going to occur about the year 2029, give or take two years.


izumi3682 OP t1_ixkb038 wrote

>AI represents, unless strictly curtailed and linear, an inherit violation of human will and freedom

I am still not sure what this has to do with the development of ever more powerful AI technology. But ok.


izumi3682 OP t1_ixk8zo5 wrote

I can't answer that question. But I can sort of infer an answer indirectly. One day we will make simulations. Not tomorrow certainly or even next Tuesday. But in 50 to 100 years? Yes. Our simulations would be beyond anything our current minds can comprehend. For that reason, the reason for making the simulations may to our minds be "unimaginable, unfathomable and incomprehensible".

So, the sims in our simulation, one day they look up at their moon and wonder what it is. Then they too are on the road to making their own sims 60,000 years hence of their reality time. To our future eyes, the simulation might be happening all at once in an instant. We are outside of their time and space. Will we be able to put ourselves into their sim. I don't see any reason why not.

I don't know, it might be just the way that reality works. Personally speaking, I have the faith of Roman Catholicism and believe that God (The Most Holy Trinity) created us and reality out of pure love for us. The Roman Catholic Church has no issue with scientific inquiry and understanding. God is big enough to take it ;)


izumi3682 OP t1_ixk7qay wrote

What is not performed by a human? The game play? I thought the point was that the AI was learning to outplay humans in highly sophisticated incomplete information games. If I am misunderstanding your point, please explain to me what you mean.


izumi3682 OP t1_ixk6ojd wrote

Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes, and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.

Here is the research paper.


From the article.

>To create Cicero, Meta pulled together AI models for strategic reasoning (similar to AlphaGo) and natural language processing (similar to GPT-3) and rolled them into one agent. During each game, Cicero looks at the state of the game board and the conversation history and predicts how other players will act. It crafts a plan that it executes through a language model that can generate human-like dialogue, allowing it to coordinate with other players.

>Meta calls Cicero's natural language skills a "controllable dialogue model," which is where the heart of Cicero's personality lies. Like GPT-3, Cicero pulls from a large corpus of Internet text scraped from the web. "To build a controllable dialogue model, we started with a 2.7 billion parameter BART-like language model pre-trained on text from the Internet and fine tuned on over 40,000 human games on webDiplomacy.net," writes Meta.

>The resulting model mastered the intricacies of a complex game. "Cicero can deduce, for example, that later in the game it will need the support of one particular player," says Meta, "and then craft a strategy to win that person’s favor—and even recognize the risks and opportunities that that player sees from their particular point of view."

So, my question is, is this an "incremental improvement" in our AI development efforts, or is this more like the "AI significantly improves every three months" level of improvement.


Are we seeing any evidence that AI of any form is improving significantly every 3 months?


izumi3682 OP t1_ixja72d wrote

Now that is a scary concept that hadn't occurred to me. That life is an unintentional side effect of the simulation. This goes to show that we do not have an inkling of the vastness of the laws of physics that have not yet been apprehended by humanity. So we know the laws of physics from, say, the year 1400 CE or the laws of physics from the year 2012 CE. But what will we learn new by 2030 or by 2050 or by 2100? Lots, I bet. Remember that in the year 2017 CE we did not know for sure that gravitational waves even actually existed. We were searching for them with sophisticated experiments and devices.

Having said that, I believe in my Roman Catholic faith. That God (The Most Holy Trinity) created us and our reality out of pure love for us. But the Holy Mother Church is open to almost all scientific endeavor and has no problem with scientific inquiry and understanding. God is big enough to take it ;)


izumi3682 OP t1_ixj8l8e wrote

It is possible the entire article was written by an AI of some sort. I speculated that the second sentence could have been deliberately produced by the AI to make it look less sophisticated than it actually is. Now that is an AI being disingenuous...


izumi3682 OP t1_ixj5kam wrote

You entirely miss my point. I used the demonstration of unreal engine to show how even today, very primitive today, we are already leaping over the uncanny valley of simulations failing to look like real life. Watch the development of VR, watch the development of videogames and Metaverses, like "Second Life" that has been showing how it's done since 2005, I think. Watch the development of computing processing speed, novel architecture and "big data". Watch the development of devices like the "Neuralink" and it's already extant competitors. Watch the development of ever more profoundly detailed scientific simulations of our universe and its components, based on our known laws of physics.

None of these alone lead to simulated realities that we take for real today, or may actually be real to some, for all intents and purposes. Although even today people experience addiction to these simulated realities. Addiction to video games? But all of these technologies along with some I'm probably leaving out, plus modification to the human mind (a human friendly technological singularity) will lead to genuine realities. And I think we shall all live long enough to experience them. Even somebody who is 105 years old today. But that is a whole other can of futurology worms ;)

This links to an essay I wrote that goes more in depth into my thoughts on the matter if you are further interested.