No, even the worse estimates still show that it will take a 50 years for us to get to what would be considered a normal global average for human history.
Sweden better hurry then.
And as usual, we're missing the cost/benefits analysis here.
They're probably using an aircraft carrier and launching cargo planes from the side of the river that has the best tax advantages for that particular flight. I imagine the state of Kentucky has certain tax advantages and the state of Cincinnati has others. The bonus is that they can conduct combat sorties against their many competitors, a necessity in these trying times.
Your dystopic scene is in regards to the content production, whereas the common carrier comment was in reference to the distribution infrastructure.
I don't know why you think that's relevant since my scenario covers distribution infrastructure as well.
However, going back to food, the fact that the government maintains the roads which are used to deliver food has not, personally, been a problem for me.
It has resulted in governments deliberately hamstringing some transportation infrastructure in favor of other transportation infrastructure. Roads in particular are notoriously impaired via tolls, restricted construction, etc in favor of mass transit.
Variety and choice tend to be good things -- but whatever we're doing now isn't working perfectly, as not everyone has access to fast internet.
Not seeing how government will make it more perfect or why it matters that not everyone has access to fast internet.
It would be one thing, if we were digging up ancient general purpose robots and having gone nowhere with them over thousands of years, decided that they weren't that exciting. That would be rational. But to declare that they can't be done merely because they haven't been done before is colossal ignorance. Virtually everything we do today, beyond the rudimentary level of basic life processes, is something that at one point hadn't been done before.
Common Carrier all fiber, cable, cellular networks, everyone runs over the common carrier, no more fragmentation, no more limitations as all companies pay the same rate to run over the same equipment....
And no more incentive to maintain, improve, or differentiate that infrastructure. It's like arguing that we should consolidate the food production industry so we can have a consistent, efficiently manufactured Soylent food product everywhere in the EU to fulfill your nutritional needs. One size fits all tends to be pretty ugly. I hear they're coming out with Soylent Green in a few months. Yum!
Because meddling is ok when it assuages your insecurities.
I apologize for the accusatory tone. As you say, you're just being devil's advocate here. But so much bad law, regulation, and lawsuits are due to hysteria over stupid people. A stupid person spills coffee on their lap, suddenly we have a need to ban coffee above a certain temperature. A stupid person flies a drone in a dangerous spot and suddenly drone flying is heavily regulated for everyone. A stupid person screws up their home's electrical system in Australia and then there is a protection racket for the local electrician mob.
Not from Oz, but to play devil's advocate, it's because "we" can get affected by your dumbass actions.
So why is interfering with peoples' ability to do basic electrical work not considered worse than the imagined harm of dumbasses? Because meddling is ok when it assuages your insecurities.
What does drive me to going to a different competitor are advertising / marketing methods I find any of the following: invasive, absurd, immature, over the top, lacking in class, offensive, over budgeted, unethical, and others. I vote my pocketbook against vendors I dislike rather than for a particular or special one.
Damn, take this down! He's just giving out these amazing ideas for free!
Here in Oz you will get in trouble if you do unlicensed electrical work on your own home. The big box hardware stores all have big signs in the electrical department clearly saying "no DIY" and warning people not to do the work if they dont have the license.
Add me to the chorus of the people who say that's crazy. I get that's a bunch of dumb people out there who will screw this up, But why should we not be able to do fun stuff because there's dumb people in the world?
Apalling: I challenge anyone who thinks that can endure that sort of abuse and remain unaffected by it.
I could. The first step I'd do, which come to think of I already did, is not read it. It's amazing how easy it is to remain unaffected by even the most puerile stuff, if you don't bother to read it.
I don't see why not. Everything scales up more or less with population size and, at least in Europe, there seems to be very little difference in general between the social and economic system systems between small and large countries. There are some difference between northern and southern and western and eastern countries in general, but they have to do with culture, history and the relative economic strength, not with size.
Evidence would be nice to have in this situation.
Moreover, on whom exactly are Finland, Sweden, Switzerland. Austria, Ireland and other non-NATO members supposedly relying? Good relations with neighbours and not starting or getting involved in far away wars over natural resources and which dictator or which terrorist group is the 'better' goes along way towards not needing an overly large military.
NATO and the EU for starters. Not every country is as hard to invade as Switzerland is. And good relations with neighbors are greatly expedited by having multiple neighbors to counter the military threat from other neighbors.
I demonstrated that there can be economic value in FFBRs. Even economic value that is in FFBRs that won't be in AI (namely, they could be tasty). It is you who is arguing from ignorance (e.g you can't imagine FFBRs having economic value, I just need to imagine a way in which they do have a use, and I did)
There's a huge difference between "can be" and "is". I pointed to present day huge industries that can use right now the power advanced AI brings. Meanwhile FFPRs could be tasty. Uh-huh.
Climate change changes resource availability. Particularly water. If areas that once had water no longer have water that will put stress on their economy potentially making them less politically stable.
When you put it that way, that doesn't very bad at all. We just need more resilient societies.
Shows how easy it is to come up with relevant rebuttals to what you said, which I did do.
I don't believe you get what "rebuttal" means. I agree that you disagree, but that's not a rebuttal.
Economic value isn't limited to making sophisticated trading strategies.
Which is irrelevant. Point is that there is big money now that would go into any AI-style technology that shows promise.
I don't know that, and neither do you.
Again, just because you disagree, is not a rebuttal. And this is an argument from ignorance fallacy.
I know that intelligence is a big deal and extremely valuable. I know that intelligence exists. I also know that despite your empty assertions to the contrary FFBRs are not so valuable in today's society. It is notable that you have yet to come up with a concrete benefit to FFBRs that is comparable to the value of intelligence. It's all handwavy potential value.
The market is bigger than both AI and FFBRs.
I don't have to find bigger markets. I merely need to show the existence of current big markets hungering for the power AI can bring. Meanwhile there's a notable absence of a big market for FFBRs. Novelty pets for people who don't have children?
Ironically, you're acting just like OP saying AI will basically never be a threat to humanity.
Another irrelevant observation. Machetes are a threat to humanity as well (they were used in Rwanda to kill hundreds of thousands of people, which is a lot more than AI has killed to date) yet we still make them.
Hey, I don't disagree with that, but that doesn't mean they'll eliminate any chance of economic value for FFBRs.
Again irrelevant. FFBRs don't have to be perfectly worthless in order for my observation to be correct.
And you know, existence proof of people intelligence is also proof that we can create intelligent biological lifeforms, which FFBRs could be. Their brains could be biological CPUs, if you will.
Not with two other competing conditions, flying and fire-breathing. I could get a much bigger CPU into a whale - air breathing for greater power generation and water immersed for far better cooling.
People who didn't vote decided that NONE of the options presented were in their best interest. Abstaining from voting is absolutely not the same as voting for the eventual winner.
That's not the way US elections work. Abstaining from voting merely means your vote isn't counted. No matter how many people don't vote, there will be someone elected.
Except, of course when there is considerable economic value.
You aren't trying very hard to come up with relevant rebuttals. We already have machines that can conduct some fairly sophisticated trading strategies on the order of microseconds (that's a bunch of orders of magnitude faster than any human). And we already have users of such systems that have paid considerable amounts of money to develop those systems.
'
Similarly, we have need for fast, intelligent processing of large data sets, which again has a fair number of big money customers right now. That's another place where AI would shine.
The market is there in a way it'll never be for FFBRs.
And we have the existence proof of people intelligence, indicating it can be done. That's why AI of human or greater level is a matter of when not if.
Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
Mine would include not doing things that are clearly going to leave you in a situation that is worse, from your own evaluation, than the current situation, and which you have reason to know will have that result...unless, of course, all the alternatives would lead to even worse results.
Which let us note is something that humans can do. They can't or won't do it all the time, so that means that their intelligence is imperfect.
If you can give a tiny handout to people who will spend it and then avoid the global financial crisis. How is that not a good thing?
If I could pop a ballooon and then...
If I could wish really hard and then...
If I could wear a green shirt that day and then...
The global financial crisis would not have been avoided by giving a tiny handout to people than it would, if I happened to wear a green shirt that day. It doesn't undo the years of bad decisions leading up to the crisis. It doesn't change that society was greatly malinvested due to so much of society putting their wealth into real estate investments of this sort. It doesn't change the amounts of leverage where high amounts of borrowed funds were used to make bad investments.
Sure, it would be a good thing, if it could be managed. But it wouldn't have been managed.
There's no fundamental law against a giant flying reptile that breathes fire either, but that doesn't mean it's actually gonna happen.
The huge difference is that there will be considerable economic value in AI that just isn't going to be in flying fire-breathing reptiles. For example, markets and militaries both would be huge customers for an AI capable of intelligent decisions faster than a human can think or react.
Slashdot Mirror
You may be able to sink my CRT laden ships, but you can't sink my virtue!
No, even the worse estimates still show that it will take a 50 years for us to get to what would be considered a normal global average for human history.
Sweden better hurry then.
And as usual, we're missing the cost/benefits analysis here.
They're probably using an aircraft carrier and launching cargo planes from the side of the river that has the best tax advantages for that particular flight. I imagine the state of Kentucky has certain tax advantages and the state of Cincinnati has others. The bonus is that they can conduct combat sorties against their many competitors, a necessity in these trying times.
I think they're speaking of the net red shift of the object which is crudely proportional to distance as far as we know.
Your dystopic scene is in regards to the content production, whereas the common carrier comment was in reference to the distribution infrastructure.
I don't know why you think that's relevant since my scenario covers distribution infrastructure as well.
However, going back to food, the fact that the government maintains the roads which are used to deliver food has not, personally, been a problem for me.
It has resulted in governments deliberately hamstringing some transportation infrastructure in favor of other transportation infrastructure. Roads in particular are notoriously impaired via tolls, restricted construction, etc in favor of mass transit.
Variety and choice tend to be good things -- but whatever we're doing now isn't working perfectly, as not everyone has access to fast internet.
Not seeing how government will make it more perfect or why it matters that not everyone has access to fast internet.
It would be one thing, if we were digging up ancient general purpose robots and having gone nowhere with them over thousands of years, decided that they weren't that exciting. That would be rational. But to declare that they can't be done merely because they haven't been done before is colossal ignorance. Virtually everything we do today, beyond the rudimentary level of basic life processes, is something that at one point hadn't been done before.
Common Carrier all fiber, cable, cellular networks, everyone runs over the common carrier, no more fragmentation, no more limitations as all companies pay the same rate to run over the same equipment....
And no more incentive to maintain, improve, or differentiate that infrastructure. It's like arguing that we should consolidate the food production industry so we can have a consistent, efficiently manufactured Soylent food product everywhere in the EU to fulfill your nutritional needs. One size fits all tends to be pretty ugly. I hear they're coming out with Soylent Green in a few months. Yum!
Because meddling is ok when it assuages your insecurities.
I apologize for the accusatory tone. As you say, you're just being devil's advocate here. But so much bad law, regulation, and lawsuits are due to hysteria over stupid people. A stupid person spills coffee on their lap, suddenly we have a need to ban coffee above a certain temperature. A stupid person flies a drone in a dangerous spot and suddenly drone flying is heavily regulated for everyone. A stupid person screws up their home's electrical system in Australia and then there is a protection racket for the local electrician mob.
Not from Oz, but to play devil's advocate, it's because "we" can get affected by your dumbass actions.
So why is interfering with peoples' ability to do basic electrical work not considered worse than the imagined harm of dumbasses? Because meddling is ok when it assuages your insecurities.
What does drive me to going to a different competitor are advertising / marketing methods I find any of the following: invasive, absurd, immature, over the top, lacking in class, offensive, over budgeted, unethical, and others. I vote my pocketbook against vendors I dislike rather than for a particular or special one.
Damn, take this down! He's just giving out these amazing ideas for free!
Here in Oz you will get in trouble if you do unlicensed electrical work on your own home. The big box hardware stores all have big signs in the electrical department clearly saying "no DIY" and warning people not to do the work if they dont have the license.
Add me to the chorus of the people who say that's crazy. I get that's a bunch of dumb people out there who will screw this up, But why should we not be able to do fun stuff because there's dumb people in the world?
No college would ignore threats like this.
FBI isn't a college.
The threats are credible.
And I think the FBI determined that contrary to your assertions, the threats weren't credible.
They demonstrate means, motivation and planning (from the FBI report):
They don't demonstration sincerity. Fake threats (for example, created by the very party threatened) look just like real ones.
Apalling: I challenge anyone who thinks that can endure that sort of abuse and remain unaffected by it.
I could. The first step I'd do, which come to think of I already did, is not read it. It's amazing how easy it is to remain unaffected by even the most puerile stuff, if you don't bother to read it.
I don't see why not. Everything scales up more or less with population size and, at least in Europe, there seems to be very little difference in general between the social and economic system systems between small and large countries. There are some difference between northern and southern and western and eastern countries in general, but they have to do with culture, history and the relative economic strength, not with size.
Evidence would be nice to have in this situation.
Moreover, on whom exactly are Finland, Sweden, Switzerland. Austria, Ireland and other non-NATO members supposedly relying? Good relations with neighbours and not starting or getting involved in far away wars over natural resources and which dictator or which terrorist group is the 'better' goes along way towards not needing an overly large military.
NATO and the EU for starters. Not every country is as hard to invade as Switzerland is. And good relations with neighbors are greatly expedited by having multiple neighbors to counter the military threat from other neighbors.
I demonstrated that there can be economic value in FFBRs. Even economic value that is in FFBRs that won't be in AI (namely, they could be tasty). It is you who is arguing from ignorance (e.g you can't imagine FFBRs having economic value, I just need to imagine a way in which they do have a use, and I did)
There's a huge difference between "can be" and "is". I pointed to present day huge industries that can use right now the power advanced AI brings. Meanwhile FFPRs could be tasty. Uh-huh.
Climate change changes resource availability. Particularly water. If areas that once had water no longer have water that will put stress on their economy potentially making them less politically stable.
When you put it that way, that doesn't very bad at all. We just need more resilient societies.
Shows how easy it is to come up with relevant rebuttals to what you said, which I did do.
I don't believe you get what "rebuttal" means. I agree that you disagree, but that's not a rebuttal.
Economic value isn't limited to making sophisticated trading strategies.
Which is irrelevant. Point is that there is big money now that would go into any AI-style technology that shows promise.
I don't know that, and neither do you.
Again, just because you disagree, is not a rebuttal. And this is an argument from ignorance fallacy.
I know that intelligence is a big deal and extremely valuable. I know that intelligence exists. I also know that despite your empty assertions to the contrary FFBRs are not so valuable in today's society. It is notable that you have yet to come up with a concrete benefit to FFBRs that is comparable to the value of intelligence. It's all handwavy potential value.
The market is bigger than both AI and FFBRs.
I don't have to find bigger markets. I merely need to show the existence of current big markets hungering for the power AI can bring. Meanwhile there's a notable absence of a big market for FFBRs. Novelty pets for people who don't have children?
Ironically, you're acting just like OP saying AI will basically never be a threat to humanity.
Another irrelevant observation. Machetes are a threat to humanity as well (they were used in Rwanda to kill hundreds of thousands of people, which is a lot more than AI has killed to date) yet we still make them.
Hey, I don't disagree with that, but that doesn't mean they'll eliminate any chance of economic value for FFBRs.
Again irrelevant. FFBRs don't have to be perfectly worthless in order for my observation to be correct.
And you know, existence proof of people intelligence is also proof that we can create intelligent biological lifeforms, which FFBRs could be. Their brains could be biological CPUs, if you will.
Not with two other competing conditions, flying and fire-breathing. I could get a much bigger CPU into a whale - air breathing for greater power generation and water immersed for far better cooling.
People who didn't vote decided that NONE of the options presented were in their best interest. Abstaining from voting is absolutely not the same as voting for the eventual winner.
That's not the way US elections work. Abstaining from voting merely means your vote isn't counted. No matter how many people don't vote, there will be someone elected.
Except, of course when there is considerable economic value.
You aren't trying very hard to come up with relevant rebuttals. We already have machines that can conduct some fairly sophisticated trading strategies on the order of microseconds (that's a bunch of orders of magnitude faster than any human). And we already have users of such systems that have paid considerable amounts of money to develop those systems.
' Similarly, we have need for fast, intelligent processing of large data sets, which again has a fair number of big money customers right now. That's another place where AI would shine.
The market is there in a way it'll never be for FFBRs.
And we have the existence proof of people intelligence, indicating it can be done. That's why AI of human or greater level is a matter of when not if.
And that means nothing.
Except, of course, that the original assertion is wrong. 43% percent and growing percent of the population doesn't have a team.
they vote for their team
Looks like roughly a 30% growth in the fraction of independents since 1988.
Mine would include not doing things that are clearly going to leave you in a situation that is worse, from your own evaluation, than the current situation, and which you have reason to know will have that result...unless, of course, all the alternatives would lead to even worse results.
Which let us note is something that humans can do. They can't or won't do it all the time, so that means that their intelligence is imperfect.
If you can give a tiny handout to people who will spend it and then avoid the global financial crisis. How is that not a good thing?
If I could pop a ballooon and then ... ... ...
If I could wish really hard and then
If I could wear a green shirt that day and then
The global financial crisis would not have been avoided by giving a tiny handout to people than it would, if I happened to wear a green shirt that day. It doesn't undo the years of bad decisions leading up to the crisis. It doesn't change that society was greatly malinvested due to so much of society putting their wealth into real estate investments of this sort. It doesn't change the amounts of leverage where high amounts of borrowed funds were used to make bad investments.
Sure, it would be a good thing, if it could be managed. But it wouldn't have been managed.
What Australia did was have a higher reserve for its banks. That prevented the need for expensive bailouts of "too big to fail" banks.
And avoiding recessions is not necessarily a good thing.
There's no fundamental law against a giant flying reptile that breathes fire either, but that doesn't mean it's actually gonna happen.
The huge difference is that there will be considerable economic value in AI that just isn't going to be in flying fire-breathing reptiles. For example, markets and militaries both would be huge customers for an AI capable of intelligent decisions faster than a human can think or react.