This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
There has been a lot of hype news in robotics + AI lately, as the AI updates just continue to come at a blinding pace. From Tesla/XAI we have the Optimus robot, which I can't tell if this is a major breakthrough or just another marketing splash driven by Elon.
On the other side of the fence, you have Nvidia releasing an open foundational model for robotics and partnering with Disney of all companies to make a droid robot.
You also have Google's I/O, which I haven't had the energy to look into.
With the speed of AI updates and the wars of hype, it's always hard to tell who is actually advancing the frontier. But it does seem that in particular robotics are advancing quite rapidly compared to even a couple of years ago. Personally I think that while automating white collar work is useful and such, AI entering into robotics will be the real game changer. If we can begin to massively automate building things like housing, roads, and mass manufactured goods, all of the sudden we get into an explosive growth curve.
Of course, this is where AGI doomer fears do become more salient, so that's something to watch out for.
Either way, another day, another AI discourse. What do you think of this current crop of news?
It is crazy to me that most people alive today will be around to see how this - this journey of civilization, this grand process of technological development - ends, or at least moves far, far beyond us. There is a millenarian tension in the air. Paradise or extinction (at least for most people), it seems increasingly clear it will be one or the other.
Maybe you're right, but there are plenty of times in history where people have felt this way before, and most of those examples I can think of are from long before I was born. Most recently, the Atomic Scientists would have you believe we've been on a knife-edge of nuclear armageddon -- maybe they're right, but never materialized during the Cold War. Or you could go back and look at any number of doomsday cults, even including early Christians anxiously awaiting Christ's return in their lifetimes.
The pattern has held long enough that I'd personally discourage making any huge life changes assuming it won't matter.
I mean, if they were right, then in most timelines, a ton of humans died/were never born, and thus it is just more probable that you were born into the timeline where we narrowly avoided the doomsday scenario.
My issue here is that we can see and interact with the 'messiah' this time. There are compelling arguments for why it will keep getting smarter. And if it gets smarter, there are plausible ways it can wipe out decent swaths of humanity.
I will grant that it is almost impossible to take anyone completely seriously because in both the scenario where we get Utopia AND the scenario where we get annihilated, nobody will care about the accuracy of the predictions that led up to it, so the incentive to be truthful and honest is minimal.
Just be cautious about normalcy bias, when things have been getting rapidly weirder for a while now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, a lot of contradictory thought patterns emerge if I ruminate about the future more than like 2 years out.
Should I live as conservatively, frugally and healthily as possible to ensure I make it to there in good shape, or should I be more reckless and try to enjoy life as much as possible since it could all end? (obviously if EVERYBODY does the latter, we might not make it there at all).
Assuming we survive, are we bound for a future of exploring the stars and colonizing new worlds, or do we get stuffed in VR experience machines that satisfy every psychological desire we have without going anywhere? Will I even have a choice?
Is there any point in breathlessly following every notable development in the AI/Robotics space to try and guess when the big moment will arrive, or would it be more constructive and mentally healthy to divorce almost entirely from it and just read escapist fiction all the time so I don't worry about something I can't really control?
Should I continue to behave as though I expect society to persist into the next century and thus be very concerned about e.g. birth rates, pollution, government's fiscal policies, and/or immigration policies? Or does none of this matter in 10-15 years, and thus I should just do the bare minimum to keep things running but hey, let the kids do what they want in the meantime. The AI can fix the mess later.
It is in my nature to prepare, both mentally and financially, for things to go south. I don't buy the hype and promises without skepticism, but I can't deny that every 6 months for the past, what, 3 years? The SOTA models have demonstrated new capabilities that check another box off my "is it smarter than humans?" list. The temptation to just give up 'trying' and go with the flow is strong.
A bit of optimism, I do believe that I'm young and healthy enough that I'm likely going to be around when we reach Longevity Escape Velocity, if the AGI stuff never fully manifests we've got all the pieces to fix most age-related problems in humans so as to give us functional immortality by 2050. Which will create a whole host of new and exciting issues if the AGI isn't already in charge.
I have the same doubts. It’s hard not to care, because for now the problems still exist. It will take solving them to end those concerns.
As for the rest of life, we brought some things forward and are probably living a little faster. There are things I want to do and experience, but most are regular life milestones. Going full hedonist and spending all the money / becoming a drug / sex / gambling / food addict doesn’t seem to make the people who do it happy, end of the world or not.
Add on that there's so many people I care about who are just living life without much awareness of what appears to be on the horizon... and it feels literally impossible to explain to them why they should perhaps care a bit about what we're seeing. There's so many disparate chapters of lore I'd have to catch them up on so they can see the whole picture like I do, I'd look like the crazed conspiracy theorist with red thread until they finally got up to speed and it clicked for them too... if it ever does.
Bit lonely being unable to bridge the gap on a topic that I find important. Hence why I'm here.
There's wisdom in that, but I can think of certain things I could be indulging in that would ABSOLUTELY make me happier, and I would do more of them if my time preference where about 5-10% higher.
One thought that springs forth recently: If I quit my job and sold my house and everything in it, I could afford to buy a decent camper van and then take a year, maybe two to drive around the Country with my dog. And why not? It won't hurt anybody, and I'll rack up a pretty fulfilling experience that will take my mind off the pending event. And that's without touching my own (modest) retirement savings. Which reminds me: What the FUCK am I supposed to with with a 401(k) as someone who is under 40?
Seriously, although I understand the benefit of having a money stash that you can't easily touch, the idea that I will want to keep adding to this pile of money that I will be unable to draw from until I'm in my 60's feels farcical under current expectations. Like, I just do not believe that the future is one where I diligently tap away at a series of steady jobs, watch my savings grow over a couple decades, and then have to draw on that money in old age for a peaceful retirement.
Can someone lay out the path to 2050 where the most likely outcome is that the market grows about 5-7% every year on average, we don't have a debt crisis, or catastrophic event, OR an AI-fueled industrial revolution that pushes things parabolic for a bit, and I, when I hit 67, will be SUPER grateful to my past self for diligently squirreling away U.S. Dollars (rather than betting on BTC, for example) over that whole period.
I will grant, if I cash in all my chips now and the "NOTHING EVER HAPPENS" brigade is right, I'd look very stupid later. And the Gods of Copybook headings have been undefeated for centuries.
But even if 'NOTHING EVER HAPPENS,' there are still enough small happenings that keep piling up that it really seems like the standard assumptions that go into the ol' "Put aside 15% of your pretax income in an index fund and never touch it" advice are not going to hold over the future. I don't think there's a reason to give up on saving entirely, but it suggests one should be taking wilder risks and being much less concerned with historic returns as a guideline for future probable outcomes.
These both sound terrifying to me.
The investment value of BTC is either an underlying "BTC will become so convenient to transact with that everyone will want to keep balances in it" (which looks less likely to happen the longer it goes without happening) or a meta "you can sell your BTC to someone who'll pay even more for it for some reason" (which happens, but can't happen forever without a non-circular reason). The investment value of USD has an underlying "everyone in the US needs some to pay their taxes instead of going to jail", and that's great, but at some point either we're going to get the federal debt under control or we're going to monetize it and dilute your USD to nothing, and I'm not betting on "get the federal debt under control".
This is less terrifying. Sure, if the ASI kills everyone and/or mandates a Socialist Utopia then you're wasting a sweet camping-with-the-dog opportunity, but if property rights retain any respect then it'll be good to have equity in a wide enough array of investments to definitely include some companies who'll manage to surf the tidal wave rather than be crushed by it. A crashing dollar is going to hurt stocks but not as badly as it's going to hurt dollars.
Personally, I just wish I knew what to advise my kids. My index funds are at the "can pay for college if they don't go to med school" level, not the "idle rich" level. Even if AI progress levels off below superhuman, it looks like it will level off at somewhere around "can interpolate within the manifold of all existing human knowledge", and how much economic room is there for the vast majority of human knowledge workers in a world like that? Being able to personally push the boundaries of knowledge into previously uncharted territory used to be what you needed to do to get a PhD, not what you needed to do on a regular basis just to remain economically viable.
The Bitcoin Maxi case at this point is that it is digital gold. More fungible and easier to store, and readily convertible to whatever currency you need. I don't buy it all myself, but Bitcoins ongoing survival is proof of something.
And if you think a dollar collapse is pending, then BTC is probably where people flee to in at least the short term.
I think I can make a case for NOT following certain paths, but as for actionable "Do this to prosper in the future" advice I am at a loss. Its not like you can just say "Plastics" and nudge them off in the direction of the next big technological gold rush.
10-15 years ago "learn to code" would have been SOLID advice. No longer. I'm increasingly reading that AI models are really good at various parts of the practice of medicine... and SUPPOSEDLY robot surgery is here. So the Med school investment looks a bit questionable.
And as for college funds... why should colleges even be a thing, at least with their current business model, when AIs are generally capable of teaching at the level of even the best professors, across any subject?
Yeah, for Gen Alpha, there is probably NO career advice that previous generations can offer them based on experience other than "wait and see."
I can imagine a world where the AI is doing all the knowledge work but keeps giving humans various tasks that it needs to complete in order to push the boundaries of knowledge forward. Tasks that will seem completely nonsensical to the individual performing them but in the aggregate allow the AI to improve things, iteration after iteration, and thereby keep most humans 'employed' and paying them in some currency they can spend with other humans and thus the 'economy' chugs along but in effect everyone on earth is a 'gig worker' who gets tasks assigned to them as needed, and gets rewarded for performance.
A scarier version is that the AI requires you to be Neuralinked up to it so it can inject arbitrary commands into your brain as needed, but also rewards you handsomely for helping out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That only makes your refusal to let us know what men yearn for but can never admit all the more cruel.
It’s my theory that there is a psychosexual component to male envy. In any case I know I’ll just get flatly disagreed with if I make the case here, and I lack unfalsifiable / objectively compelling and comprehensive evidence. I’ve just always believed it.
What else is there to be envious of, his fucking watch?
And, you can’t take the hassle? That’s new. Although if I have to choose, I much prefer that reason for censoring yourself, than the implication it is to protect our fragile egos and ids. The latter could be interpreted as a challenge, or as passing the buck.
More options
Context Copy link
I know posters who use objectively compelling and comprehensive evidence, and they’re all cowards.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah a lot of Christians I know seem to think it’s the Apocalypse. I disagree but there is that vibe.
Even the Pope seems to, which is interesting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
/r/singularity has been blowing up with Veo's progress in video, with something like this or this being examples.
Clearly a ton of progress has been made here, but I'm still wondering when these will move from merely being able to generate silly short videos to demonstrate "progress", to actually being able to be part of robust production pipelines. Stuff like artwork is much more simple, and still isn't quite ready for primetime (i.e. fully replacing artists).
There's a reason I do expect someone (or a very small team) to produce a feature-length film on a shoestring budget using AI by year's end.
The different modalities were already demonstrated, the only thing that was needed was someone to combine them into an extended, coherent end product.
This one makes it probably an order of magnitude easier. In my previous post I speculated that they could produce 1 minute of usable footage a day and pull it off. Well, now you can get a minute or so of 'usable' footage in two hours, apparently.
Won't be long until you can type a sufficiently detailed prompt into one of these things, pay a couple thousand dollars worth of credits, and it can spit out a whole movie for you.
I find this unlikely. It might happen in a few years if current progress continues but this year is too early. If I arbitrarily set the threshold of a "film" at >75 minutes long, and set some baseline quality standard of say >50 on Metacritic, and stipulate that principle photography must be done entirely through AI (humans doing minor touch-ups would be fine), I think people would be very hard pressed to do that in the very short term. The scaffolding and pipelines don't really exist yet to make that feasible.
In fact, I'm writing this one down in my list of predictions that won't happen to keep track of.
My hedge is that I'm saying its >50%, so not a certainty, but I want to be clear that IF it happens I wasn't caught off-guard and if it doesn't happen (or indeed never happens) I did stick my neck out and will accept the derision.
Because obsessive auteurs (or autists) with time on their hands and the proper tools CAN in fact create amazing works in relatively short time frames. It took Michelangelo 4 years to paint the Sistine Chapel. Would we agree that with modern tools and a few decent assistants, in the current era he could easily knock it out in less than 1?
Bo Burnham produced an acclaimed 87 minute-long special all by his lonesome in just over a year.
A small and dedicated team that animated an 84-minute long film over 5 1/2 years using free tools totaled about 40-50 people working on it but was mostly down to just two guys doing the critical work.
(Incidentally, "Flow" is also what Google is calling their AI video workspace)
So if the AI is sufficiently good to 10x the productivity of the creators, a team of about 5 could probably get something that's Netflix-Worthy (derogatory way to put it, granted) done inside of a year, if they share a vision and have maniacal but competent leadership.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do we know how good it is at building coherent multi-scene videos? Can I have the same two people in the same room, from a different angle? Ideally in a long continuous shot, but even after a cutover would be amazing. Otherwise, this is pretty limited in utility for entertainment media - maybe commercials.
But either way, it's enough to be a problem for trusting video. It's like the world envisioned in The Truth Machine, in which everyone tells the truth. Everyone becomes highly trusting, and life is good. Only with AI video-gen, it's inverted: everything could be lies, so no one believes anything, so life is terrible. Fun.
For most of human history, you didn't believe something unless you saw it yourself or someone you trusted told you about it. Photo and video evidence wasn't a thing. If we lose it, it would be a shame, but I don't think it would make life terrible.
There are ways to mitigate this of course, multiple independent sources. A problem is if you have a large group of people with institutional/cultural power willing to act semi-organically to further lies.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I haven't heard anything one way or the other in terms of building coherent multi-scene videos. This, from my experience, means that it's probably pretty terrible at doing this. If it wasn't, people would be aggressively showing it off.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I did take a gander at a couple of Google's Veo 3 demos for a look into one future of filmmaking.
The sailor and "Irish coast" clips were better than rally car. I did take the time to read the prompts, posted below in the description, and noted the first two were short and simple, while the rally car prompt (which had bad audio via headphones) one was insanely dense. Behold, the future of screenwriting:
Probably written by an LLM? To be fair, the other two video prompts are only a few sentences long:
Seems good enough to change a chunk of TV commercial filmmaking and advertising at the least.
I actually found the rally car one the most impressive, because holy cow that's a lot of details to keep consistent, including The water splash on the camera lens, and the vehicle itself doesn't do any weird shape changing even as the water obscures it, and the audio was good enough that I would not have called that it was an AI producing it rather than a professional Foley artist.
Camera motions seem slightly unnatural but THE CAMERA IS MOVING and the scene retains coherence. Actually mind-blowing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It’s true that robotics is getting renewed attention, but this seems to be more the result of increased investment rather than any foundational sea change in knowledge or theory. The fixation on a bipedal and human-ish one is also just that, a fixation, and still leads to some difficulty even moving around consistently - see for example the robot marathon and of course claims that the Tesla robots have been somewhat relying on human controllers last I heard. No new paradigms yet there.
There continues to be progress on the LLM front but this is actually, maybe contrary to the impression you are getting, slowing. I wouldn’t call it a plateau at all but there’s a real sense of struggle out there. Most of the focus in the last six months has been tool use of various kinds, rather than fundamental improvements, though there are some theoretical ideas kicking around that might prove fruitful. On the contrary the major research labs have started to see some diminishing returns. Meta notably can’t even catch fully up to the front players and most of the team quit in frustration. Anthropic has been stuck in a bit of a rut with 3.7 only a mixed improvement over 3.5 and in some ways a regression. OpenAI has had trouble getting the so-called “version 5” off the ground that’s an impressive enough improvement to deserve the name. Google is catching up and adding some neat things. Context windows are going up. “Agent” systems are being experimented with more. Video generation is showing some sparks of brilliance but the compute required is pretty steep. Deepfake video and voice, even real time stuff, is the biggest issue right now, more than any AGI crap.
Do you have any source on this? I'd love to learn more.
More options
Context Copy link
The fixation on humanoids is understandable: a humanoid robot is a drop-in replacement for a human worker. When I use a food delivery service I often select a courier robot. It's a cute box on six wheels that drives to my apartment block entrance. But the delivery company can use them because I live in a sizable neighborhood between a railroad and a stroad that is both flat and full of restaurants.
A wheeled box can't cross the stroad because it can't use an underpass. A wheeled box can't cross the railroad either because there's an overpass. A wheeled box can't get to my front door as there are a few insurmountable obstacles even in the apartment complex: the first door leading to the lobby has an anti-hobo lock that you need three fingers to open, the second door has an intercom and is quite heavy, then there's a small flight of stairs leading to the elevator (there's a ramp, but you have to unlock and lower it), the robot then has to call the elevator and ring my doorbell.
In a country like the US that has ADA-compliant everything it's probably easier to build a useful delivery robot that can get around on wheels with a single button-pressing finger, but this is still quite limiting. You can't put a hundred of them into a warehouse or a sweatshop without rebuilding it to be robot-accessible. Everything in our lives is designed for human bodies, it's a very obvious target for the robotics industry.
I can honestly say this is the first time seeing that word ever used. But then again, I don't think I've ever really made a distinction between a "street" and a "road" before, let alone thought of something in between.
'Stroad' is a shibboleth, generally meaning "[I don't like] roads that have more than one lane and are generally unobstructed".
Not exactly. A freeway is not a stroad. An arterial without businesses or housing that serves to move people from place to place is also not a stroad.
Generally, a stroad is a high or medium-speed road with housing or commercial areas right on it.
Really, the reason they exist is cost. It's cheap to take a one-lane-bidirectional road that has a bunch of existing development on it, expand it out to 2, maybe put a center turning lane in it, and you have what is effectively a highway.
Strong Towns and the other anti-car people get extremely butthurt about "but muh suburban financial sustainability", but this is why this kind of construction exists in the first place. Same with the 4-way stop and the traffic light; it doesn't require a few million dollars per intersection like roundabouts do (it's the cheaper, more technologically-advanced option, though it of course does make other sacrifices).
Yes, it'll cost you more lives and property damage because someone didn't look both ways and got (them or their car) hit by another car going 50 mph, but human safety and human dignity (in this case, the dignity of not living in a million-dollar shoebox and it only taking 10 minutes to get to your destination rather than 60) are always two sides of the same coin.
This is only the case in the situation where the development isn't actually on the road or the lanes are super wide.
I'm not sure what your claim is, exactly. Are you saying that stop signs are technologically advanced? Or that you can have stop signs on a road where the speed limit is 50 (based on your next paragraph)? I certainly haven't seen that before.
Wide, high speed roads are a nuisance to live near (ask me how I know), so I don't know that it's a big increase in dignity to make every road a 45MPH arterial.
I'm not sure what you are getting at with your 10 minute vs 60 minute journey hypothetical. The places where it takes 10 minutes to make a trip and the places where it takes 60 minutes to drive an equivalent distance are not the same, and this goes back to the land usage in the first part. You can't expand the roads endlessly, because there's stuff on the side of the road, and to make things worse, that stuff on the side of the road is why people travel in the first place, and with wider roads those places are forced further apart except in totally rural areas.
You can't take e.g. San Francisco and replace every two lane road with a six lane road to fix the traffic without running out of land or building double decker freeways in the middle of the city.
In general, my preferred mode of living is a medium town with quiet, shaded streets in town so that people can walk and bike around and kids can play in the street without getting oneshotted by a driver scroooolling tiktoks at 50 MPH. This is incompatible with wide roads with high speed limits, aka, stroads.
For everything else, there's the interstate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
in each direction (two in total)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's not exactly a stereotypical suburban American stroad, given that I live in a massive metropolis, but the effect is similar: Soviet urban planners had a cyclopean sense of scale, their successors saw it as a quick and dirty solution to the traffic issues: why build highways when you can just build a dozen lanes in the existing right of way?
More options
Context Copy link
Anti-car people made it up even though there was already a word for it (arterial road or arterial highway).
To be fair, IMO it isn't a totally useless word. There is value in differentiating between a generic "urban arterial" road and an "urban arterial" that specifically favors long-distance travel while giving nothing but lip service to local access and pedestrians, where a limited-access road that doesn't even try to accommodate local access and pedestrians would be safer. Compare US 130 in Pennsauken, NJ (awful unfixable grandfathered design), with NJ 70 in Cherry Hill, NJ (much better).
t. civil engineer (roadway, not traffic, so not really an expert on this topic)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's a term recently coined by people who want to eliminate cars.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How's that work, exactly? I know they live a hard lifestyle at the best of times, and apparently they're now losing fingers to xylazine too in some areas, but I would have assumed that most hobos still have 8 or 9 fingers, minimum, nowhere near down to 3 per hand even.
Nah, the anti-hobo part is knowing which three buttons to press out of ten, requiring enough fingers to do this is the anti-robot side effect.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
When I watched Nvidia's CES(?) presentation it was kind of wild to see all their AI products and/or aspirations. Their concept of having robots tokenize movements to complete tasks the same way LLMs tokenize words to respond to questions was an interesting concept. The part where current laborers have to train the robots was dystopian as hell. But I will derive a sense of deep schadenfreude when some "undocumented worker" or H1B that was trained by his white male predecessor (under duress) then has to train his AI replacement. Hard to imagine AI doing a worse job than 3rd world "elite human capital". And as a share holder of NVDA I'm rooting for it. Even as a nationalist I hope it takes off and is cheaper and has few externalities than the open borders policy our ruling class continually pushes in the interest of cheap labor. It represents a possible means to solving the labor issue that continually undercuts the polity of nations. It at least represents a ray of possible hope over the current status quo where the only solution to the dysfunction of our current society is to feed 6B third worlders through it at the fastest rate possible because "muh gdp".
More options
Context Copy link
Funny, I was just looking at this a few minutes ago.
Talking about AI, especially with regards to capabilities advancement, feels kind of pointless right now because the battle lines have clearly been entrenched. Any discussion of the shortcomings of current models or potential limitations of deep learning is met with "ahh, but just wait 1/5/10 years, then you'll be sorry!"
Very well then, let's wait 1/5/10 years. I'll check back in 2030.
Unlike the other topics which usually come up in the CW thread :P
Oh sure. But with ethical/political questions, you can keep going round and round forever with new arguments because there's no hope of ever reaching a final settlement.
AI capabilities are largely a straight empirical question. We can know exactly where AI will stand 10 years from now. We just have to wait 10 years to find out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link