On October 06 2021 01:15 DropBear wrote: Seeing those pictures is really depressing. How can anyone ever clean all of that up?
I'm definitely afraid of AI.
The issue is that there seems to be like 0 care about waste. I visited India, throwing garbage on the street or the next river/whatever is just completly normal. People don't even think about it and the country lacks to interest/money to have enough cleanup crews to remove it daily.
For comparison: I was in Japan and South Korea. There is barely any litter ever but also only very few trashcans, yet the people seem to actively take care. In famously clean Switzerland there is actually plenty of litter. It just gets immediatly cleaned up. On Friday the streets in the towncenter where i live are often littered badly but the cleanup crew goes out at ~6-7 in the morning and stuff gets cleaned and washed immediatly.
Imho this is more a cultural than a technological issue.
Recently my views of humanity future became very grim. I am now of opinion that social media will be the doom of humanity. As exhibited by covid vaccination problems they are extremly damaging to science and very good at spreading missinformation and fear. Their influence will continue to grow to the point when they inhibit all scientific progress in more chalnaging and difficult to understand areas.
On October 14 2021 22:54 Silvanel wrote: Recently my views of humanity future became very grim. I am now of opinion that social media will be the doom of humanity. As exhibited by covid vaccination problems they are extremly damaging to science and very good at spreading missinformation and fear. Their influence will continue to grow to the point when they inhibit all scientific progress in more chalnaging and difficult to understand areas.
I think this is the problem of social media but I want to also add that this is beyond misinformation. And you are a good example of what exactly what worries me, that the anti vaxx are largely caused by misinformation/fear.
If we swap the position, the anti vaxx could call pro vaccine ill-informed as well because some side effects like bloodclots were found later on AFTER mass vaccination campaign.
At the end these are complex science and average people lack any relevant knowledge to make a high level decision.
Social media, with its echo chamber effect, is driving people to have strong stance despite most don't even understand fully of what they are talking about. It spoon feed you with info that you are familiar with, and endlessly drown you with smearing campaign.
I see this issue with the Trump election fraud claim problem as well. There are framework on how to deal with election fraud claim, use it instead of dismissing it. Just like thousands claimed they have evidence and they had to go through the legal process, which all (AFAIK) failed to present any to the court.
Just like thousands claimed they have evidence and they had to go through the legal process, which all (AFAIK) failed to present any to the court.
Trump and his cronies certainly presented "evidence" in the courts, but a lot of it was so unsubstantial the judges dismissed it right away, which was then used as "proof" that the claims were true. What is more interesting is how the counter court cases go, and that even Gulliani backed off when actually under oath admitting he had nothing.
Feelings and beliefs is very different from facts, and we very rarely change our minds.
On October 14 2021 22:54 Silvanel wrote: Recently my views of humanity future became very grim. I am now of opinion that social media will be the doom of humanity. As exhibited by covid vaccination problems they are extremly damaging to science and very good at spreading missinformation and fear. Their influence will continue to grow to the point when they inhibit all scientific progress in more chalnaging and difficult to understand areas.
It's funny that people who designed algorithms for Google, Facebook etc. forbid their own children to use any of those products and have been recorded in the interviews to say that the biggest short-term effect social media will have on society is sparking civil wars everywhere.
Just like thousands claimed they have evidence and they had to go through the legal process, which all (AFAIK) failed to present any to the court.
Trump and his cronies certainly presented "evidence" in the courts, but a lot of it was so unsubstantial the judges dismissed it right away, which was then used as "proof" that the claims were true. What is more interesting is how the counter court cases go, and that even Gulliani backed off when actually under oath admitting he had nothing.
Feelings and beliefs is very different from facts, and we very rarely change our minds.
Same idea actually, that goes for you as well. The problem is that you THINK you know the facts, and I guess you argued against there's ever any cheating.
But in actuality how involved are you to the system? How much do you know the IT side, the manufacturing side, the set up, the rules, the staff, the delivery etc?
Until the opposition going through courts that you can finally get them to admit there's no legitimate evidence and prove that you are right. Up until then you were only relying on fact checkers and authorities, which is pretty much blind faith as well.
Same with the vaccine is safe claim, hardly any of us are involved in the development, the manufacturing and the deployment of all the different vaccines. Except here the high level scientific community are the ones presenting and debating, while the rest of us relying on our own judgement pretty much.
Even the UN has made several incorrect call on the pandemic nature, and the lab leak theory was suddenly back onto the table.
We all act with blind faith to a certain degree, especially when the truth are sometimes too buried for us to know, and that we experience the world subjectively.
Same idea actually, that goes for you as well. The problem is that you THINK you know the facts, and I guess you argued against there's ever any cheating.
But in actuality how involved are you to the system? How much do you know the IT side, the manufacturing side, the set up, the rules, the staff, the delivery etc?
No, I disagree. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and "evidence" that is dismissed in over 50 lawsuits is simply not credible. For that to add up, you have to engage in some huge conspiracies involving a ton of judges and officials appointed by republicans.
For vaccines, that they do admit and report rare side effects is very solid evidence that there is no foul play, and the statistics tell a very clear story about vaccine effectiveness. Once again, you need to engage in far fetched conspiracies.
Both of these examples are really about feelings. If you "feel" that Trump was cheated in the election and that vaccines are too dangerous to be used, no logical argument can change your mind.
Same idea actually, that goes for you as well. The problem is that you THINK you know the facts, and I guess you argued against there's ever any cheating.
But in actuality how involved are you to the system? How much do you know the IT side, the manufacturing side, the set up, the rules, the staff, the delivery etc?
No, I disagree. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and "evidence" that is dismissed in over 50 lawsuits is simply not credible. For that to add up, you have to engage in some huge conspiracies involving a ton of judges and officials appointed by republicans.
For vaccines, that they do admit and report rare side effects is very solid evidence that there is no foul play, and the statistics tell a very clear story about vaccine effectiveness. Once again, you need to engage in far fetched conspiracies.
Both of these examples are really about feelings. If you "feel" that Trump was cheated in the election and that vaccines are too dangerous to be used, no logical argument can change your mind.
Not that I am taking the stance on any of these issues, I am specifically talking about the problem of dismissal.
Here again exists the same two problems here.
One is that the extraordinary claims and evidence are accepted by not a small amount of the public. And the second problem, you, like many others, are unlikely to ever knowledgeable enough to dismiss/approve of the evidence.
Not only are anti vaxx are not out right conspiracy believers, like the original poster I quoted, the election fraud claim also stemmed from Democrats claiming Russian helped Trump won.
I remember a time when UN dismissed human transmission, the usefulness of mask, the lab leak theory etc. I also recall blood clot issued were found only after mass vaccination programs have began. Or how hunter biden laptop was planted by Russian.
We live in an information imperfect world, we can't escape subjectivity, yet we can only rely on external authorities and experts, and still we argue like we are the experts or that we even should be having a high degree of trust in them
Same idea actually, that goes for you as well. The problem is that you THINK you know the facts, and I guess you argued against there's ever any cheating.
But in actuality how involved are you to the system? How much do you know the IT side, the manufacturing side, the set up, the rules, the staff, the delivery etc?
No, I disagree. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and "evidence" that is dismissed in over 50 lawsuits is simply not credible. For that to add up, you have to engage in some huge conspiracies involving a ton of judges and officials appointed by republicans.
For vaccines, that they do admit and report rare side effects is very solid evidence that there is no foul play, and the statistics tell a very clear story about vaccine effectiveness. Once again, you need to engage in far fetched conspiracies.
Both of these examples are really about feelings. If you "feel" that Trump was cheated in the election and that vaccines are too dangerous to be used, no logical argument can change your mind.
Not that I am taking the stance on any of these issues, I am specifically talking about the problem of dismissal.
Here again exists the same two problems here.
One is that the extraordinary claims and evidence are accepted by not a small amount of the public. And the second problem, you, like many others, are unlikely to ever knowledgeable enough to dismiss/approve of the evidence.
Not only are anti vaxx are not out right conspiracy believers, like the original poster I quoted, the election fraud claim also stemmed from Democrats claiming Russian helped Trump won.
I remember a time when UN dismissed human transmission, the usefulness of mask, the lab leak theory etc. I also recall blood clot issued were found only after mass vaccination programs have began. Or how hunter biden laptop was planted by Russian.
We live in an information imperfect world, we can't escape subjectivity, yet we can only rely on external authorities and experts, and still we argue like we are the experts or that we even should be having a high degree of trust in them
Science can and will change what is considered true, semented opinions do not. I just heard an example of anatomy books used my medical students 45 years ago, essentially saying "recent research had shown this is actually much more complicated, but we don't know the details yet so have with this inaccurate simplification". The students would be expected to update their knowledge once it was available.
You don't have to be an expert to consider if a source is reliable or not. When real experts have different opinions and there is no consensus, it gets a lot more complicated.
I would think nuclear war or global warming have a far greater likelihood of wiping out humanity than some sentient AI. Seems like vanity to think that we'll create a cyber Frankenstein rather than some dumb fuck launches a nuke and "forces" retaliation in kind etc til we're all dead. But if asking strictly if possible then yeah I guess most anything is.
On October 16 2021 17:10 Starlightsun wrote: I would think nuclear war or global warming have a far greater likelihood of wiping out humanity than some sentient AI. Seems like vanity to think that we'll create a cyber Frankenstein rather than some dumb fuck launches a nuke and "forces" retaliation in kind etc til we're all dead. But if asking strictly if possible then yeah I guess most anything is.
It is hard to imagine man made global warming wiping out humanity. We are a tropical species that largely evolved to live along the equator. On top of that because of technology we can survive at temperatures well outside our comfort zone.
The highest predictions I have seen are like 7 degrees. The temperature change would almost be convenient except for the coastal flooding it would cause.
We lack anything close to the number of nukes needed to wipe ourselves out. Perhaps if we had 1000x more nukes in the future this could change, but at the moment it seems that bombing ourselves to death is pretty impossible. Also, in order to literally kill off the species with bombings, something other than our species would need to be control the last bombs and that would probably be an AI so in a sense if you believe we could nuke ourselves to death you really believe that an AI we create may nuke us to death.
Because of the recent experience with Coronavius, I am currently most concerned about some nasty genetically engineered virus.
You underestimate the effect of climate change. Soon there will be mass migrations from the equatorial areas to colder climates as the conditions there will be unlivable for human beings. The land will be unarable and temperatures will be way out of any comfort zone (even today you have temperatures hitting 70C in the sun and 50C in the shade in the middle-east and that's super harsh on people, even cars can't handle it).
On October 18 2021 23:28 Manit0u wrote: You underestimate the effect of climate change. Soon there will be mass migrations from the equatorial areas to colder climates as the conditions there will be unlivable for human beings. The land will be unarable and temperatures will be way out of any comfort zone (even today you have temperatures hitting 70C in the sun and 50C in the shade in the middle-east and that's super harsh on people, even cars can't handle it).
Kill all humans? Unless it's some skynet-kinda thing (not just the nukes, some would survive those, also needs the H-Ks), no way. You'll still have "lunatics" that don't want your precious FDVR. Can technology disrupt / change our civilisation in ways we can't even imagine? I'm sure of that as well.
On October 22 2021 03:15 Arghmyliver wrote: An irresponsible person would tell you to look up Roko's Basilisk but in general I prefer not to mention it.
Too many assumptions in roko's basilisk. It caused a nice amount of internet drama though.
Also, I strongly suggest reading Diaspora by Greg Eagan.
I think that is a valid point! The danger is probably less about malfunctioning AI and more about what humans with bad intentions can do when in charge.
The Earth has been ice free and up to 8 degrees warmer than today. Although the biosphere certainly changed, it is possible to argue that life in general flourished.
EPT
