Gilded-Mongoose

Gilded-Mongoose t1_j3klba6 wrote

That’s because we haven’t had true AI yet. Just new software learning and production techniques that we’re calling AIA and getting all hyped over ourselves over. I’m still sleep on it.

Wake me up when it can replicate and codify genetic code, isolate specific traits and features, and transpose it into programming features or create new versions of life.

1

Gilded-Mongoose t1_j1r40b6 wrote

Right. And like…pleasure. It’s a series of chemicals sent to our brain telling us that it’s “good” - but how the hell do we actually process and experience it as such!? Both that and things like itches. What is it that makes that difference between understanding something as a signal of “yes this is a good thing” or “an itch” vs actually experiencing the thing and knowing what to do?

I WISH I could simply experience pain or discomfort on an objective level, like a car light going on - but something about it is just too subjective. What is that “thing” on a biological / neurological level beyond the base mechanisms?

3

Gilded-Mongoose t1_j1qs1ty wrote

I don’t think so. Every new step is a plateau.

I really think anti-matter or dark matter & discovering how to understand, and actually control or manipulate, the force of gravity are going to be HUGE difference makers.

True (not Hollywood or pedestrian) artificial intelligence and being able to truly create and design life will be similar game changers. Figuring out a concept of non-carbon based life will also be equally groundbreaking.

And finally the ability to continue the concept of “invisibility” fascinates me. I was deep in Popular Mechanics a long time ago and they were talking about the concept of invisibility - bending light waves around an object. It went from bending radio waves (ie radar invisibility), up to light waves (visual invisibility), and started talking about actual physical bending of things. Basically enabling physical things to not collide with each other. It was highly highly theoretical (like barely scientifically theoretical), but conceptually it makes you wonder how things will be 100 years from now, never mind 500 or another thousand.

2

Gilded-Mongoose t1_j1ozvju wrote

Y’all don’t realize memory transfer doesn’t mean “you” live forever. You’re not transferring yourself - it’s just another exact clone of you.

I’ve said this before - you can duplicate your memory elsewhere but just imagine you don’t die - you’re still watching your “other” self run amok but if you die then you still die.

2

Gilded-Mongoose t1_it6fg6j wrote

I think the alarms are both dramatic enough and are enough false alarms/alarmist that we dismiss them.

If anything it could bring about the 5th Industrial Revolution in ways that we haven’t seen before. And just as the 1st through ongoing-4th ones have been, we’ve gone along for the ride. As a species we are very, very adaptable and flexible. And singularity on its own - software, calculations, non-living incentives (most of our social malice stems from our biological mortality, which would have to be artificially programmed, and which would be weeded out by the majority of purely logical directives) - isn’t very much of a threat. It opens up far, far more progressive opportunities than threats. Far more than society’s collective creativity is even aware of yet - see how over in AI, all they’re doing is creating porn, psychedelic videos, and just generally weird or stupid concepts.

Even the scientific community is really only using it as a shortcut processing tool.

So yeah. Real life is often boring and I think that, realistically, we’re expecting relatively more of the same in that regard.

1

Gilded-Mongoose t1_iswexsy wrote

I’m watching The Grand Budapest Hotel right now and really soaking in the distinctive Wes Anderson’s style of technically crisp and adamantly quirky in execution.

This question simply smacks of the same energy.

2