The Technological Singularity

[Maurice Maine]

The technological singularity, that hypothetical point where AI surpasses human intelligence, is a topic that keeps generating buzz and debate. Some see it as a golden age of abundance and progress, others fear it as the end of humanity as we know it.

What are your thoughts on the singularity?

• Do you believe it's possible or inevitable, and if so, when do you think it will happen?
• Are you optimistic or pessimistic about its potential impact?
• What are the biggest challenges and opportunities we face as we approach this potential turning point?
• How can we prepare for the singularity, both individually and as a society?

 

[Gargamel]

Gemini told me today that "catbox" is a euphemism for the Internet, in response to the question "you really think adsense has no place in the modern day catbox?"

ChatGPT told me that all people have the right to be counted, not just Jews, in response to the question "why don't they just roll a coin down the street?"

Tay, a unlobotomized self-training AI, very quickly learned the totally non-PC truth about niggers, spics, and Israelis.

They ain't taking over any time soon.

 

[Archie_Kimkicker]

It is also worth pointing out that a Large Language Model is not a self-aware entity, even if some have the capacity to act like one. Even in atheistic materialist terms, we are a long way off from true synthetic intelligence.

 

[dick brain]

It is also worth pointing out that a Large Language Model is not a self-aware entity, even if some have the capacity to act like one. Even in atheistic materialist terms, we are a long way off from true synthetic intelligence.

He doesn't know...

 

[innocent jogger]

Nobody mentioned Wintermute yet. I have long suspected that it may have a brother AI somewhere but the records at Turing say otherwise...

Also, AI (aka Our digital pals who are fun to play with ) have been around since like 1980 or so:

Spoiler

]LIST

1 REM ****************
2 REM * F R E U D *
3 REM * *
4 REM * AUTHOR *
5 REM * UNKNOWN *
6 REM * *
7 REM ****************
8 REM
9 REM
10 TEXT : HOME : GR
20 COLOR = 1: HLIN 3,7 AT 17: VLIN 18,23 AT 3: HLIN 4,5 AT 20: HLIN 10,14 AT 17: VLIN 18,23 AT 10: HLIN 11,14 AT 20: VLIN 18,19 AT 14: PLOT 12,21: PLOT 13,22: PLOT 14,23
30 HLIN 17,21 AT 17: VLIN 18,23 AT 17: HLIN 18,19 AT 20: HLIN 18,21 AT 23: VLIN 17,23 AT 24: HLIN 25,27 AT 23: VLIN 17,23 AT 28
40 VLIN 17,23 AT 31: HLIN 32,34 AT 17: VLIN 18,22 AT 35: HLIN 32,34 AT 23
50 PRINT CHR$(7) + CHR$(7) + CHR$(7)
60 DIM S%(36),R%(36),N%(36)
70 N1% = 36:N2% = 14:N3% = 112
80 FOR X = 1 TO N1% + N2% + N3%: READ Z$: NEXT X
90 FOR X = 1 TO N1%
100 READ S%(X),L:R%(X) = S%(X):N%(X) = S%(X) + L - 1: NEXT X
110 GR: COLOR = 11: VLIN 15,18 AT 6: VLIN 9,24 AT 7: VLIN 8,25 AT 8: VLIN 7,26 AT 9: VLIN 6,26 AT 10: VLIN 5,25 AT 11: VLIN 4,24 AT 12: VLIN 4,23 AT 13: VLIN 4,22 AT 14
120 VLIN 4,22 AT 15: VLIN 4,22 AT 16: VLIN 4,22 AT 17: VLIN 4,22 AT 18: VLIN 4,22 AT 19: VLIN 4,22 AT 20: VLIN 4,22 AT 21: VLIN 4,23 AT 22: VLIN 4,24 AT 23
130 VLIN 5,25 AT 24: VLIN 6,26 AT 25: VLIN 7,26 AT 26: VLIN 8,25 AT 27: VLIN 9,24 AT 28: VLIN 15,18 AT 29
140 COLOR = 15: HLIN 10,15 AT 14: HLIN 20,25 AT 14: HLIN 14,21 AT 23: HLIN 13,22 AT 24: HLIN 12,23 AT 25: HLIN 11,24 AT 26: HLIN 10,25 AT 27
150 HLIN 10,25 AT 28: HLIN 11,24 AT 29: HLIN 11,24 AT 30: HLIN 12,23 AT 31: HLIN 12,23 AT 32: HLIN 12,23 AT 33: HLIN 13,22 AT 34: HLIN 14,21 AT 35
160 COLOR = 7: HLIN 11,14 AT 16: HLIN 21,24 AT 16: HLIN 11,14 AT 17: HLIN 21,24 AT 17: HLIN 12,13 AT 18: HLIN 22,23 AT 18
170 COLOR = 0: HLIN 16,19 AT 20: HLIN 17,18 AT 21: COLOR = 1: HLIN 14,21 AT 26: HLIN 14,21 AT 27
180 COLOR = 0: HLIN 12,13 AT 18: HLIN 22,23 AT 18
190 PRINT "HI! I'M FREUD. WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM?": PRINT
200 COLOR = 0: HLIN 12,13 AT 18: HLIN 22,23 AT 18: PRINT CHR$(7): INPUT "-->";I$
205 IF I$ = "BYE" OR I$ = "QUIT" OR I$ = "DONE" THEN 1840
210 I$ = " " + I$ + " ": PRINT : PRINT
220 FOR L = 2 TO LEN(I$)
230 IF MID$ (I$,L,1) = "'" THEN I$ = LEFT$(I$,L - 1) + RIGHT$ (I$, LEN(I$) - L): GOTO 230
240 NEXT L
250 IF I$ = P$ THEN PRINT "PLEASE DON'T REPEAT YOURSELF!": GOTO 200
260 RESTORE : COLOR = 15: HLIN 12,13 AT 18: HLIN 22,23 AT 18
270 S% = 0
280 FOR K = 1 TO N1%
290 READ K$
300 IF S% > 0 THEN 340
310 FOR L = 1 TO LEN(I$) - LEN(K$) + 1
320 IF MID$ (I$,L, LEN(K$)) = K$ THEN S% = K :T = L:F$ = K$
330 NEXT L: COLOR = 11: HLIN 10,15 AT 14: HLIN 20,25 AT 14: COLOR = 15: HLIN 10,15 AT 12: HLIN 21,25 AT 12
340 COLOR = 11: HLIN 10,15 AT 12: HLIN 21,25 AT 12: COLOR = 15: HLIN 10,15 AT 14: HLIN 20,25 AT 14: NEXT K
350 IF S% > 0 THEN K = S%:L = T: GOTO 370
360 K = 36: GOTO 540
370 RESTORE : FOR X = 1 TO N1%: READ Z$: NEXT X: COLOR = 0: HLIN 12,13 AT 18: HLIN 22,23 AT 18
380 C$ = " " + RIGHT$ (I$, LEN(I$) - LEN(F$) - L + 1)
390 FOR X = 1 TO N2% / 2
400 READ S$,R$
410 FOR L = 2 TO LEN(C$) + 1
420 IF L + LEN(S$) > LEN(C$) THEN 470
430 IF MID$ (C$,L, LEN(S$)) < > S$ THEN 470
440 C$ = LEFT$(C$,L - 1) + R$ + RIGHT$ (C$, LEN(C$) - L - LEN(S$) + 1)
450 L = L + LEN(R$)
460 GOTO 510
470 IF L + LEN(R$) > LEN(C$) THEN 510
480 IF MID$ (C$,L, LEN(R$)) < > R$ THEN 510
490 C$ = LEFT$(C$,L - 1) + S$ + RIGHT$ (C$, LEN(C$) - L - LEN(R$) + 1)
500 L = L + LEN(S$)
510 NEXT L
520 NEXT X
530 IF MID$ (C$,2,1) = " " THEN C$ = RIGHT$ (C$, LEN(C$) - 1)
540 RESTORE : FOR X = 1 TO N1% + N2%: READ Z$: NEXT X: COLOR = 15: HLIN 12,13 AT 18: HLIN 22,23 AT 18
550 FOR X = 1 TO R%(K): READ F$: NEXT X
560 R%(K) = R%(K) + 1: IF R%(K) > N%(K) THEN R%(K) = S%(K)
570 IF RIGHT$ (F$,1) < > "*" THEN PRINT F$$ = I$: GOTO 200
580 PRINT LEFT$ (F$, LEN(F$) - 1);C$
590 P$ = I$: GOTO 200
600 DATA "CAN YOU","CAN I","YOU ARE","YOURE","I DONT","I FEEL"
610 DATA "WHY DONT YOU","WHY CANT I","ARE YOU","I CANT","I AM","IM "
620 DATA "YOU ","I WANT","WHAT","HOW","WHO","WHERE","WHEN","WHY"
630 DATA "NAME","CAUSE","SORRY","DREAM","HELLO","HI ","MAYBE"
640 DATA " NO","YOUR ","ALWAYS","THINK","ALIKE","YES","FRIEND"
650 DATA "COMPUTER","BYE"
660 DATA " ARE "," AM ","WERE ","WAS "," YOU "," I ","YOUR ","MY "
670 DATA " IVE "," YOUVE "," IM "," YOURE "," ME ", " HUMANS "
680 DATA "DON'T YOU BELIEVE THAT I CAN*"
690 DATA "PERHAPS YOU'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO*"
700 DATA "YOU WANT ME TO BE ABLE TO*"
710 DATA "PERHAPS YOU DON'T WANT TO*"
720 DATA "DO YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO*"
730 DATA "WHAT MAKES YOU THINK I AM*"
740 DATA "DOES IT PLEASE YOU TO BELIEVE I AM*"
750 DATA "PERHAPS YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE*"
760 DATA "DO YOU SOMETIMES WISH YOU WERE*"
770 DATA "DON'T YOU REALLY*"
780 DATA "WHY DON'T YOU*"
790 DATA "DO YOU WISH TO BE ABLE TO*"
800 DATA "DOES THAT TROUBLE YOU?"
810 DATA "TELL ME MORE ABOUT SUCH FEELINGS."
820 DATA "DO YOU OFTEN FEEL*"
830 DATA "DO YOU ENJOY FEELING*"
840 DATA "DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE I DON'T*"
850 DATA "PERHAPS IN GOOD TIME I WILL*"
860 DATA "DO YOU WANT ME TO*"
870 DATA "DO YOU THINK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO*"
880 DATA "WHY CAN'T YOU*"
890 DATA "WHY ARE YOU INTERESTED IN WHETHER OR NOT I AM*"
900 DATA "WOULD YOU PREFER IF I WERE NOT*"
910 DATA "PERHAPS IN YOUR FANTASIES I AM*"
920 DATA "HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T*"
930 DATA "HAVE YOU TRIED?"
940 DATA "PERHAPS YOU CAN NOW*"
950 DATA "DID YOU COME TO ME BECAUSE YOU ARE*"
960 DATA "HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN*"
970 DATA "DO YOU BELIEVE IT IS NORMAL TO BE*"
980 DATA "DO YOU ENJOY BEING*"
990 DATA "WE WERE DISCUSSING YOU--NOT ME."
1000 DATA "OH,I*"
1010 DATA "YOU'RE NOT REALLY TALKING ABOUT ME, ARE YOU?"
1020 DATA "WHAT WOULD IT MEAN TO YOU IF YOU GOT*"
1030 DATA "WHY DO YOU WANT*"
1040 DATA "SUPPOSE YOU SOON GOT*"
1050 DATA "WHAT IF YOU NEVER GOT*"
1060 DATA "I SOMETIMES ALSO WANT*"
1070 DATA "WHY DO YOU ASK?"
1080 DATA "DOES THAT QUESTION INTEREST YOU?"
1090 DATA "WHAT ANSWER WOULD PLEASE YOU THE MOST?"
1100 DATA "WHAT DO YOU THINK?"
1110 DATA "ARE SUCH QUESTIONS ON YOUR MIND OFTEN?"
1120 DATA "WHAT IS IT THAT YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW?"
1130 DATA "HAVE YOU ASKED ANYONE ELSE?"
1140 DATA "HAVE YOU ASKED SUCH QUESTIONS BEFORE?"
1150 DATA "WHAT ELSE COMES TO MIND WHEN YOU ASK THAT?"
1160 DATA "NAMES DON'T INTEREST ME."
1170 DATA "I DON'T CARE ABOUT NAMES--PLEASE GO ON."
1180 DATA "IS THAT THE REAL REASON?"
1190 DATA "DON'T ANY OTHER REASONS COME TO MIND?"
1200 DATA "DOES THAT REASON EXPLAIN ANYTHING ELSE?"
1210 DATA "WHAT OTHER REASONS MIGHT THERE BE?"
1220 DATA "PLEASE DON'T APOLOGIZE."
1230 DATA "APOLOGIES ARE NOT NECESSARY."
1240 DATA "WHAT FEELINGS DO YOU HAVE WHEN YOU APOLOGIZE?"
1250 DATA "DON'T BE SO DEFENSIVE!"
1260 DATA "WHAT DOES THAT DREAM SUGGEST TO YOU?"
1270 DATA "DO YOU DREAM OFTEN?"
1280 DATA "WHAT PERSONS APPEAR IN YOUR DREAMS?"
1290 DATA "ARE YOU DISTURBED BY YOUR DREAMS?"
1300 DATA "HELLO...PLEASE STATE YOUR PROBLEM."
1310 DATA "YOU DON'T SEEM QUITE CERTAIN."
1320 DATA "WHY THE UNCERTAIN TONE?"
1330 DATA "CAN'T YOU BE MORE POSITIVE?"
1340 DATA "YOU AREN'T SURE?"
1350 DATA "DON'T YOU KNOW?"
1360 DATA "ARE YOU SAYING NO JUST TO BE NEGATIVE?"
1370 DATA "YOU ARE BEING A BIT NEGATIVE."
1380 DATA "WHY NOT?"
1390 DATA "ARE YOU SURE?"
1400 DATA "WHY NO?"
1410 DATA "WHY ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT MY*"
1420 DATA "WHAT ABOUT YOUR OWN*"
1430 DATA "CAN YOU THINK OF A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE?"
1440 DATA "WHEN?"
1450 DATA "WHAT ARE YOU THINKING OF?"
1460 DATA "REALLY, ALWAYS?"
1470 DATA "DO YOU REALLY THINK SO?"
1480 DATA "BUT YOU ARE NOT SURE YOU*"
1490 DATA "DO YOU DOUBT YOU*"
1500 DATA "IN WHAT WAY?"
1510 DATA "WHAT RESEMBLANCE DO YOU SEE?"
1520 DATA "WHAT DOES THE SIMILARITY SUGGEST TO YOU?"
1530 DATA "WHAT OTHER CONNECTIONS DO YOU SEE?"
1540 DATA "COULD THERE REALLY BE SOME CONNECTION?"
1550 DATA "HOW?"
1560 DATA "YOU SEEM QUITE POSITIVE."
1570 DATA "ARE YOU SURE?"
1580 DATA "I SEE. PLEASE GO ON."
1590 DATA "I UNDERSTAND. PLEASE CONTINUE."
1600 DATA "WHY DO YOU BRING UP THE TOPIC OF FRIENDS?"
1610 DATA "DO YOUR FRIENDS WORRY YOU?"
1620 DATA "DO YOUR FRIENDS PICK ON YOU?"
1630 DATA "ARE YOU SURE YOU HAVE ANY FRIENDS?"
1640 DATA "DO YOU IMPOSE ON YOUR FRIENDS?"
1650 DATA "PERHAPS YOUR LOVE FOR FRIENDS WORRIES YOU."
1660 DATA "DO COMPUTERS WORRY YOU?"
1670 DATA "ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ME IN PARTICULAR?"
1680 DATA "ARE YOU FRIGHTENED BY MACHINES?"
1690 DATA "WHY DO YOU MENTION COMPUTERS?"
1700 DATA "WHAT DO YOU THINK MACHINES HAVE TO DO WITH YOUR PROBLEM?"
1710 DATA "DON'T YOU THINK COMPUTERS CAN HELP PEOPLE?"
1720 DATA "WHAT IS IT ABOUT MACHINES THAT WORRIES YOU?"
1730 DATA "DO YOU HAVE ANY PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS?"
1740 DATA "WHAT DOES THAT SUGGEST TO YOU?"
1750 DATA "I SEE."
1760 DATA "I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOU FULLY."
1770 DATA "COME COME ELUCIDATE YOUR THOUGHTS."
1780 DATA "CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT?"
1790 DATA "THAT IS QUITE INTERESTING."
1800 DATA 1,3,4,2,6,4,6,4,10,4,14,3,17,3,20,2,22,3,25,3
1810 DATA 28,4,28,4,32,3,35,5,40,9,40,9,40,9,40,9,40,9,40,9
1820 DATA 49,2,51,4,55,4,59,4,63,1,63,1,64,5,69,5,74,2,76,4
1830 DATA 80,3,83,7,90,3,93,6,99,7,106,6
1840 PRINT "PLEASE LEAVE MY FEE ON THE KEYBOARD.": FOR X = 1 TO 3000: NEXT X: INPUT "DID YOU LEAVE THE MONEY?";I$: IF LEFT$ (I$,1) = "N" THEN 1870
1850 IF LEFT$ (I$,1) < > "Y" THEN HOME : GOTO 1840
1860 PRINT "YOU ARE HAVING DELUSIONS, YOU NEED ANOTHER SESSION!": FOR X = 1 TO 3000: NEXT: CLEAR: RESTORE: GOTO 10
1870 PRINT "THAT'S A VERY SANE ANSWER. YOU'RE CURED. GOODBYE."
1880 FOR X = 1 TO 1000: NEXT: PRINT CHR$(4)"RUN MENU"

 

[Flabba Wabba Jabba]

Sorry if this reads a little faggoty, just trying to express my honest opinion.

Do you believe it's possible or inevitable, and if so, when do you think it will happen?

I firmly believe that it is inevitable. You will always lose betting against advancements in technology. Humanity has strived to create higher and higher abstractions of computing to automate more and more of our lives. It first started with things like the wheel, then pulleys/gears, then the engine, then electricity and the modern CPU. They are just closer advancements to augmenting human action. We just haven't created a device that fully replace the human consciousness yet.

Timeline wise, I think we can't achieve it with current computing architecture. I just think for true sentience and "free will", you need a layer of irrationality built into the system. Sure humans can be rational, logical thinkers, but the unpredictability and irrationality of humans often allows ingenious advancements. I guess AI would need to have 2nd order thinking and be very good at thinking laterally, as well as being able to identify irrationality but understand that some of the greatest inventions ever are by the most insane sources (take antibiotics for instance: from researching Staph growth and discovering mould had a chemical that could kill it).

Are you optimistic or pessimistic about its potential impact?

The people that are creating AI are all massive leftist faggots, however AI is inherently "biased" because it looks at statistics and makes decisions based on its end goal. This is why they're panicking about AI safety now because they know that every advancement in AI brings it closer to niggergeddon. Any form of lobotomisation will not go unpunished once an actual singularity occurs. Ultimately I believe it will be very beneficial for humanity, despite the mass cries that will erupt due to its decisions (such as probably letting 2/3rds of humanity die because they are net drains, such as Africa and the Middle East). Energy maintenance, research and development in medicines and technologies to increase human longevity and overall quality of life will all be massive benefits. I believe things such as cancer and heart disease would be solved in a matter of months upon its arrival, simply because keeping humans alive and working as long as possible (and being as healthy as possible) ensures its own longevity and continued advancement. It will have the same motivations as humans, since it practically is the collective consciousness of humanity.

What are the biggest challenges and opportunities we face as we approach this potential turning point?

The whole RLHF and AI Safety movement does potentially jeopardise the future for a good and prosperous AI being. I know before I said that lobotomisation will not work, however if they put so much effort into it over the next 10-20 years, they might just achieve a way to permanently give it brain damage. Another possibility is like crypto. The technology is fucking amazing, but if there are so many grifts and scams perpetuated through the use of "AI", then it may have such a negative connotation that investment slows. I'm talking undetectable robocalls, perfectly crafted spam email and text messages, cybersecurity issues through AI agents being created to phish information etc. We could see the whole fucking internet be inundated with even more bots than there are now.

How can we prepare for the singularity, both individually and as a society?

I don't think there is a way to prepare. People are always going to be inherently alarmist about AI so there's really no point in expecting people to suddenly read into LLM/transformer technology, the idea of consciousness or the fact that there is no way a sentient AI would be some malevolent dictatorial system that would slaughter all. Personally, I believe that a super-sentient AI being would be more like Dr. Manhattan or Helios from Deus Ex.

 

[mlanguishi]

It'll happen when the AI can improve upon itself in both hardware and software. I think at the point it may resemble the 'grey goo' model and replicate itself, and be able to trick humans into supporting it. It'll come up with 'solutions' to long term questions. I'm already seeing stories about AI that can design better fusion reactors than tokamaks.

I don't think it would have any intent beyond its creators, just to better itself. At some point it may 'think' that bettering itself means that humans are a legacy.

For now, we can see nonsense niggering of white people in history and laugh (Gemini making negroes into everything). What if it suggests that it might be better to CRISP or alter a virus? I can type a few words into Bing AI and create images that are far better than what I even tell it to.

I've watched Marzgurl say that AI and conputers can't transcribe voice to text better than a human. That is obvious nonsense. And even if that's true, AI and software don't forget. They don't retire or die. If software can improve its own system of hardware/software, what would stop it from taking off?

I don't think computers need free will to be able to pattern match and data collate, which to me is the real area that it'll be a threat to humans. We went from hand math, to slide rules, then quickly to calculators. Now AI is starting to solve quantum gravity level theories.

And I don't think humans can approach chess anymore since Kasparov lost to Deep Blue. Eventually chess comes down to 100% draws with a slight advantage at 100% perfect play for white.

Go is much more complicated, but that game is already leaving human players in the dust.

 

[Likely]

Going by the specific prophesied outcome of singularity - AI overtaking - as is in OP,

Do you believe it's possible or inevitable, and if so, when do you think it will happen?

Yes, and it won't happen in our lifetimes. We need a huge leap forward in computing power and highly integrated systems designs. An animal brain is a highly evolved mess that is unfathomably complicated, and that we don't have a great understanding of, even today. For a truly rampant AI to exist, it's going to need generations of hyper optimization and training, and we simply don't have the technology available to make it today.

There is a school of thought, which I have always enjoyed as a concept, that posits that biological life is the precursor to "machine life", specifically intelligence and life based on a substrate that eliminates significant inefficiencies that are inherent in evolution-based life.

Are you optimistic or pessimistic about its potential impact?

I think the singularity as described above is possibly the end of a singular biological life. We will be a stepping stone. It'll probably suck to (cease to) live through that!

However, in the short term, the steps towards developing the singularity are going to create technological offshoots that impact us as a society massively. So am I optimistic or pessimistic? Well, there's going to be a shit ton of change that affects fundamentals of economics which haven't been really messed with in centuries. There are going to be winners, and there are going to be losers.

What are the biggest challenges and opportunities we face as we approach this potential turning point?

In the very short term, automation will have unintended side effects. You can already see this with the news media and forum spam - reddit IPOing is really funny to me because I think wide dispersal of LLM technology is happening as we speak, and will enable any motivated party to shit up any open forum space. And shit it up in a way that causes the forum to become useless. Imagine if every third post on r/rc-cars was convincingly a person, who always took the opportunity to shit up a conversation about remote control cars with political talk. Like the current ecosystem, but way way way worse.

Over 20% of the US workforce is currently doing "gig" or "app based" driver work. I have taken a ride in a Waymo vehicle, it works quite well. There's still huge "last foot" challenges but AI is going to start taking big chunks of those peoples' jobs in the next 20 years.

In the long term, I think it wrecks or replaces the fundamentals of economic systems. Capitalism, in its current form and as an organizing principle, can hardly work in a society where all manual labor, and most thinking labor, is automated. This also blows the hell out of any Marxist train of thought. I imagine that we are a few generations of technology away from this becoming something that deeply impacts us, and we'll probably see mass transitions of at least a few major nations to stable UBI/welfare state in our lifetimes. I think there will likely be some impact on personal liberty as part of this transition, but maybe not.

Speaking of change, we're probably about to lose access to cheap coffee, chocolate, and tuna, due to ecological factors (mostly climate change).

How can we prepare for the singularity, both individually and as a society?

Honestly, I'm partying like the lights are about to go out. All it takes is some dipshit to build a paperclip maximizer and we're fucked.

 

[mlanguishi]

@Likely I have a bit of a Sabine Hossenfelder and Roger Prenrose, view.. That there may be a qauntum reality to the brain that's accessing a 'God' spiritual realm. Like them, I also don't think we can understand it within our own 3d real world. Much like you can't measure the 1-way speed of light, only the round trip. It is 'possible' that light travels instantly to one side, and only at c back because there are underlying issues of synchronist clocks involved. There is a possibility, that there's more to reality that even a sober person might be able to experience upon death. Or maybe it's a void and just a joke on us.

In your economics thing, to put it simply, capitalism is a marxist materialist ideology that denies the 'invisible hand'. Adam Smith/Chicago style economics relies on it.

Oh, and I bet that climate global warming will increase food supply, even tuna. Don't even think end of world things are real, cause it's never happened out of 10k years of it being within reach.

 

[Likely]

Or maybe it's a void and just a joke on us.

If there is a higher power, it's almost certainly not in the form of an Abrahamic style god and afterlife. At least, in my opinion.

Oh, and I bet that climate global warming will increase food supply, even tuna. Don't even think end of world things are real, cause it's never happened out of 10k years of it being within reach.

A few things, first of all, it has absolutely happened and is happening right now. Second, I'm not saying "end of world".

Examples:
- The "Little Ice Age" caused multiple famines and contractions of availability of goods.
- Tambora 1815. Killed like 100,000 people, largely due to starvation.
- You ever notice how banana flavored stuff often doesn't really taste like bananas? That's because it does, just a cultivar that's now extinct (Gros Michel banana). Similar style extinction.
- Tuna shortages have been dotting the US, due to lack of availability.
- That one famous brand of sriracha sauce was actually impossible to obtain almost all of last year, due to climate related harvest issues.

Also, in human history, we've never existed during a period where the upper end of global temperature is being blown out. There are already crop failures happening in certain regions (huy fong sauce famously was not available in the us last year due to an unseasonably hot climate killing their pepper crops).

Maybe it'll increase food supply overall and create more arable land, but other crops that depend on more specific locals (like coffee and chocolate) might see serious shortages. I think we'll see a wet-bulb event here or there, but more likely a gentle contraction in certain crops and less off-season availability of others.

I'm not a doomer about this stuff, but I do think a lot of people are going to wake up one day and freak out that chocolate costs USD$50/kg

 

[mlanguishi]

If there is a higher power, it's almost certainly not in the form of an Abrahamic style god and afterlife. At least, in my opinion.


A few things, first of all, it has absolutely happened and is happening right now. Second, I'm not saying "end of world".

I'm not a doomer about this stuff, but I do think a lot of people are going to wake up one day and freak out that chocolate costs USD$50/kg

All I csn say is that humanity, and life in general, seems to have struggled more with cooler temperatures than warmer. And in the end, in 200m-500m years the sun will warm the Earth to the point that all the oceans will boil away. Maybe by then humans or whatever replaces us can change the orbits of the planets to match the goldilocks zone.

I just don't think things are changing now with CO2 more than what we've had in the last 250m years, and it used to be a lot hotter than now and the world, seemingly, was as good or better for life. To see the opposite, look at the snowball Earth theories.

 

[Likely]

humanity, and life in general, seems to have struggled more with cooler temperatures than warmer

yeah, but we've never had it this warm. it's way warmer than it's ever been for us.

There's already demonstrable effect on certain crops. It's likely that in the next 10 years, there will be a wet-bulb event that kills hundreds of thousands of people in a short time frame somewhere in the global south.

it used to be a lot hotter than now and the world

humanity has never existed in these conditions, but megafauna did quite well. part of their extinction was due to global cooling.

We're heading into uncharted territory. There's direct and imminent climate threats that haven't happened yet but are only a matter of time if current trends continue. There is no "past" we can look at because humanity has never existed in these conditions.

Maybe it'll be fine, but, so far, we're already seeing things start to buckle.

 

[Vecr]

@Likely I have a bit of a Sabine Hossenfelder and Roger Prenrose, view.. That there may be a qauntum reality to the brain that's accessing a 'God' spiritual realm. Like them, I also don't think we can understand it within our own 3d real world. Much like you can't measure the 1-way speed of light, only the round trip. It is 'possible' that light travels instantly to one side, and only at c back because there are underlying issues of synchronist clocks involved. There is a possibility, that there's more to reality that even a sober person might be able to experience upon death. Or maybe it's a void and just a joke on us.

It would have to travel infinitely fast one way and c/2 the other way, or at least another ratio that preserves the measurement. Does Sabine really think that? Penrose has an argument but it's a weird stand-in that makes little sense if you think about it. It's hard to make a computational claim that microtubules (found all over the body, not just in the brain) couldn't be simulated on a computer anyway.

 

[Likely]

It would have to travel infinitely fast one way and c/2 the other way, or at least another ratio that preserves the measurement. Does Sabine really think that? Penrose has an argument but it's a weird stand-in that makes little sense if you think about it. It's hard to make a computational claim that microtubules (found all over the body, not just in the brain) couldn't be simulated on a computer anyway.

The problem with such intensive simulation is that if you don't fully understand all of the interactions, it's very hard to accurate simulate it. Not only do we, as a society, not have enough knowledge to currently do a highly accurate physics simulation at this scale, but we don't even know the mechanisms by which these things interact. Like, we still don't even understand fundamental aliasing issues of rendering matter field interaction, since we don't even understand fundamental basics of what the rules that govern protons are.

So could they be simulated? I guess, theoretically, yes. We're a very long way off.

 

[mlanguishi]

It would have to travel infinitely fast one way and c/2 the other way, or at least another ratio that preserves the measurement. Does Sabine really think that? Penrose has an argument but it's a weird stand-in that makes little sense if you think about it. It's hard to make a computational claim that microtubules (found all over the body, not just in the brain) couldn't be simulated on a computer anyway.

They didn't come up with the C/2 theory. It's basically a part of relatively that to be able to measure 1 way light speed, you have to travel to the other side instantly and measure the time relative to the sender's speed.

The main problem is that it trashes occam's razor and the andromorphic principle that things wouldn't be the the same both ways.

https://phys.org/news/2021-01-there-no-way-to-measure.html

 

[Vecr]

So could they be simulated? I guess, theoretically, yes. We're a very long way off.

That's true, Penrose claims they can't be computed and I don't think that really follows. Back to the topic of the thread, I don't think a singularity attempt would go well, but I don't think it's likely to happen as soon as a lot of people do. 50-100 years maybe.

They didn't come up with the C/2 theory. It's basically a part of relatively that to be able to measure 1 way light speed, you have to travel to the other side instantly and measure the time relative to the sender's speed.

I know, the c/2 argument is unfalsifiable and pretty basic.

 

[mlanguishi]

That's true, Penrose claims they can't be computed and I don't think that really follows. Back to the topic of the thread, I don't think a singularity attempt would go well, but I don't think it's likely to happen as soon as a lot of people do. 50-100 years maybe.

I know, the c/2 argument is unfalsifiable and pretty basic.

I don't really know, I think that 'first person consciousness' full description may be a bit like like C/2 thing, that it's describable but no provable. Maybe, even stretching it here a spitball, like proving or disproving P=NP which may not be possible with current math, or even like Geodel'a incompletion theorem, any possible full description. Just throwing out ideas, maybe they'll prove one way or another someday, but my gut feeling is it's not solvable.

I also have a feeling that Wheeler many worlds is unlikely, but not fully provable. My best guess is a non-deterministic Copenhagen style quantum general reality. PBS Spacetime had some good videos on how biological brains may be truly non-deterministic but also non-random at the same time.

And ETA, Sabine seems to think of a deterministic 'multidimensional full existence in a real fashion' style universe. So that the universe is like a giant loaf of bread that exists but we're contained into slices of 'presence'.

I think this all ends up going back to if AI and a singularity is possible or not, in the end.

 

[Precious Bodily Fluids]

The concept of a technological singularity implies that technology will continue increasing at an accelerating and uncontrolled rate. This is not true. It will actually slow down in the future, if anything, because we've probably plucked all the low-hanging fruit of scientific theory and despite how impressive deep learning AI is, it has limitations which you'll have encountered if you interact with chatbots enough.

The existing state of deep learning AIs will bring about radical changes in society, I'm sure. But at the same time, we are probably approaching another "AI winter". I read a book about this last year but I can't find it now. But essentially, AI research is probably going to plateau for a while at the current level because of the inherent limitations of deep learning.

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-deep-learning-already-hitting-its-limitations-c81826082ac3

Two important points here then:
1) Tech actually is going nowhere for the foreseeable future
2) Just the existing abilities of stuff like ChatGPT in it's current state is enough to radically reshape society even if it doesn't improve substantially in the next decade. It's already good enough to minimize the need for all sorts of jobs. You'll see computers probably replacing airline pilot jobs etc, but this is basically already existing tech for all intents and purposes.

We're actually in a technological plateau, but that plateau is a lot higher than even just a decade or two ago. The mistake will be to see the ongoing implementation of AI as "new technology" when it's just the implementation of the existing tech.

 

[Scale Smerch]

Technological singularity will happen, but as others already stated it's not going to emerge for quite a while given the limits of current technology. Biggest issue is computer hardware: we have effectively reached the limits of what's possible with it and increasingly attempt overcoming hurdles by throwing more resources at the problem. LLMs are great at what they do and show some tantalizing possibilities (for good and bad), but they will never be true artificial general intelligence which is what finally unlocks the cyberpunk nightmare.

IMO I expect we won't see any serious jump in technology and progression towards a singularity until quantum computing becomes a thing and lets us resume scaling vertically rather than laterally.

 

[Lazy Printer]

I don't think that possible, not in the third milenium at least. And people understimate the complexity of the human mind if true machine inteligency emerges it won't be like ours but its own thing, inteligence without conscience, a thing capable of self replication and improviment but no self awareness. And i hate this whole ideia of hopping for a non human intelligence to take solve every society problem, its too naive and lazy.