naossoan t1_iz19wje wrote

The technological singularity is a hypothetical future event in which artificial intelligence and other technologies become so advanced that they fundamentally change human civilization and the way we live.

Imagine a world where computers and machines are able to think, learn, and make decisions just like humans. They can understand and solve complex problems, create new technologies, and even improve themselves. In this world, machines would be able to do many things that are currently only possible for humans to do, and they would be able to do them faster, better, and more efficiently.

This could lead to incredible advancements and improvements in many areas, such as medicine, transportation, communication, and more. However, it could also lead to challenges and uncertainties, as people may have to adapt to a world where machines play a larger role in society and the economy.

Some people believe that the technological singularity is inevitable, and that it will happen in the next few decades. Others are more skeptical and think that it may never happen, or that it will happen much further in the future. No one knows for sure what the future will hold, but the idea of the technological singularity is an interesting and exciting concept to think about.

- Care of ChatGPT


naossoan t1_iyx5nkd wrote

chatgpt isn't even connected to the internet, and can't even "do" anything. you are overexaggerating.

It also doesn't give proper instructions on how to do anything you mentioned.

It can be 'tricked' into giving instructions for things it shouldn't, like hotwiring a car, but if you read that poem you would see it's absolute trash and you can't conceivably hotwire a car with those instructions.


naossoan t1_iy9j6xy wrote

Everyone who isn't already rich right now, or will have at minimum several million in the bank by 2030 is basically screwed.

The economy isn't ready for mass adoption of AI taking over jobs.

The government isn't ready for it either.

Legislation is not even being considered or thought about seriously enough right now to even have the precursor to a solution.

UBI with current econimies cannot work, there's not enough money being brought in by taxes to pay for it. People argue this all the time but they literally cannot do basic math.

It would take close to 800 BILLION dollars per year to give every adult in Canada $2000 per month, which is well below minimum wage, and well below the cost of living for a single person. That's close to 3 times the current annual tax revenue. That kind of money isn't going to just materialize from nowhere, even if you take it all from the richest people and corporations in Canada it doesn't even begin to make up the difference.

Call me a doomer but I believe by the time I'm 50 I will basically be living in poverty with no possible avenues for me to not be in poverty due to automation of nearly everything and no societal safety nets being put in place. I am in a decent place right now with my vocation because what I do can't directly be automated, but it COULD be replaced by a new technology, or by a different way of doing what I do. I do believe that could happen by the time I'm 50, putting me out of work because what I do is highly specialized. I've been studying and working on Web Development on the side because it's interesting and I enjoy building things, and pays well right now if I decide to try to make a second income from that on the side, but that is even more susceptible to AI automation. Soooo.....

My head is pretty much 80% AI is going to ruin everyone who isn't already rich's lives, 20% it will free everyone from work and provide a high quality of living for everyone.


naossoan t1_iy4gtd9 wrote

I don't think anyone thought we'd have 16K photorealistic high field of view VR....

There are basically two reasons.

  1. Expensive R&D
  2. Small / Niche market

Companies want to make profits. Most companies are focused on short-term over long-term profits. Not all, but most.

Companies like this likely see VR development as too risky. So the only companies you see investing in the long term are those with leaders who are truly passionate about VR and the future of VR / AR.

Creating expensive products for a very small market is very risky, and a lot of people / companies are not willing to take that risk.


naossoan t1_ixfvbuo wrote

Drinking the Elon juice, I see.

Tesla would have happened with or without Elon. Without him, it likely would have just taken longer, but some other rich person would have been a VC if it wasn't Elon.

Elon is an extremely dislikeable person in every possible way.

That said, he's very good at selling hype, but not great at delivering.

Tesla may have started the 'EV revolution' which, in the grand scheme is not important at all, but now that the mainstream automakers are "in," Tesla is being outpaced in terms of quality, with range coming soon.

We are much better off redisigning cities and focusing on mass transit, not personalized cars. Not only for the climate's sake, but it would literally make most people's lives better.

Elon is basically a meme at this point.


naossoan t1_iw433o0 wrote

I tend to adopt the doomer point of view myself... So anything better than the earth becoming mostly uninhabitable due to rising temperatures, the majority of ecosystems dying out or getting flooded, mass starvation and homelessness of the majority of humans.... As all remaining wealth gets hoarded at the top...Well then it's a pretty good day.


naossoan t1_ivaqfjc wrote

Carbon capture is complete bullshit unless it's powered 100% by nuclear, geothermal, or some other kind of renewable energy.

The largest carbon capture plant today in Iceland only removes 4000 tonnes of co2 per year, which is roughly 800-something cars.

Being Iceland I'm assuming it is powered by geothermal, which is great, but Iceland is one of the few places on earth where geothermal energy is relatively easily obtainable.

If a cartoon capture plant is powered by coal or natural gas power it's nearly completely negated, at the very best reduced to negligible offsets, similarly to electric cars.

It's much more effective to remove those 800 something cars from the road in the first place.


naossoan t1_itjzujw wrote

I didn't mean it like eating this in it's literal cultured form... But like...IN something.

Also, I'm probably not the best person to discuss it because I do treat food as "something necessary for me to survive" and don't really care in which form that nutrition comes in as long as it doesn't taste like shit. If I could eat Matrix Slop every meal of every day and be in perfect dietary health, I would. Bonus points if I could change the flavour but would be perfectly fine with the "tasty wheat" default flavour described in the film 😂

I consumed nothing but Soylent for over a year straight, soooooo.... Yeah. I don't give a single fuck about food. It's basically something I have to consume in order to continue living. At least that's how I see it.


naossoan t1_itjugwb wrote

Totally. I almost never use Google assistant on my phone. It's just not very good for what I do with my phone and almost anything assistant can do, I can do faster myself.

The only time I use it is when I am physically unable to pick up or touch my phone for whatever reason, and when I go to bed and say "hey Google, wake me up at <whatever time>"

(I have a highly irregular morning schedule and don't always need to wake up at the same time)


naossoan t1_irl6d9s wrote

I don't think he was taking credit for anything when he said that. At least, I don't believe he actually claimed to be doing so. As I said, it's a longstanding theory that he was quoting.

I don't like Musk as much as the next guy, but to go as far as to say he was attempting to coin the theory is a bit of a stretch.