I have a dryer. All clothes go in the dryer because outside is wet and inside is tiny. If clothes don’t like the dryer, they shrink and we can’t wear them, therefore all clothes are dryer-safe. After dryer, clothes are piled on couch. When clean clothes are needed, they’re on the couch.

It’s interesting that the one person who actually seems to know what they’re talking about is the one getting downvoted. AI is bad at many things for many reasons, but that doesn’t mean we should just assume that anything derived from AI is automatically slop.

But why do we need to work to earn money? Because if those jobs didn’t get done we couldn’t survive. What OP is asking, I think, is if those essential jobs were automated, nobody would need to work, so why aren’t we talking about that?

All that stuff is coming. It’s taking longer than people would have expected, but it’ll happen sooner or later. You’re right that we seem to be stuck with the dystopia, though. We’ll fight over an ever dwindling pool of work until there’s nothing left, and then we’ll die or live at the sufferance of those in charge. The only hope is complete systemic change, but that seems further away now than it has ever been, mainly because not enough people even care. They’re pacified by their streaming content and drip fed carefully cultivated outrage-bait to keep them from even imagining that uniting is a possibility.

Don’t forget that Hawaii should go to Iceland due to volcanic brotherhood (and to give the Icelandics an opportunity to get a tan). And NYC goes back to the Netherlands if they’ll take it (think how expensive it would be to add all the bike lanes).

Whoever makes it to the final, and whoever wins, I hope both sets of fans can put their differences aside and unite in song.

’Who’s the pedo, who’s the pedo, who’s the pedo in the files? Who’s the pedo in the files?’

They would use radiator panels which automatically swivel so they’re edge-on to the sun.

I think the bigger problems are;

1. The costs (monetary and environmental) of launching so many new satellites,
2. Large-scale computing technology is untested in that kind of environment and will likely encounter a number of issues and unforeseen problems (so more launches until they get it right),
3. Additional radiation will increase errors, so they will require a more robust design with more redundancy than Earth-based systems,
4. If they’re in a low orbit similar to Starlink satellites (which have an expected lifetime of 5 to 7 years) they will need to be constantly replaced.

They need to make a TV series based on Pussy Riot.

Judges and Magistrates are the legal jobs most threatened by AI? That seems… unlikely.

Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson might fit the kind of tone you’re going for. The whole book is about restructuring society to combat climate change, but there’s no actual apocalypse in the traditional sense. The first chapter is one of the most harrowing things I’ve ever read, which does set the scene for what’s to come and shows why the changes they make are necessary.

I haven’t read the linked interview or watched the video, but based on the quotes in this post what Weir is saying isn’t wrong, it’s just (in my opinion) missing the point a bit. Do we really want AI to make art for us? Is that a good use for the technology?

My prediction is that AI generated books will end up replacing the ‘pulp’ part of the industry; the ‘airport novel’, the ‘trashy romance’, etc. If people can just prompt a machine to give them exactly the kind of book that they’re in the mood for, many will.

Human made books will still be valued because they’re human made, but they’ll probably occupy several niches; the books written mostly because the author loves writing (fan fiction, etc.) with little expectation of a large audience, and the higher-end literary works where the human element will be most valued.

I don’t think this is the direction that we should be taking with this technology. AI should be automating away the dangerous jobs and drudge-work so that humans can focus on more interesting and rewarding things, but at this point it would take a massive popular movement to shift things onto a better trajectory, and if we can’t collectively even get our shit together to properly address climate change, what chance do we have of doing this?

Proof that global warming is not real!!!! Read your science… if something gets HOTTER it EXPANDS!!! Those scientist cucks have cucked themselves good this time!!!!

/s (in case it’s needed)

I think the problem is that Brexit was never about becoming ‘self-reliant’. As you said, Brexit cut the UK off from their single biggest export market, which is the exact opposite of what you need to do if you want to build up your industry. These days no country is completely self-reliant, and trying to be so, while it sounds good, just ends up meaning that you generalise, becoming mediocre at everything and exceptional at nothing.

If the Brexiteers truly wanted to make Britain great again they should have chosen a domain to be great in and lobbied for investment in it. Britain was already punching well above its weight in financial services, they could have invested further in that, for example, and become a true world leader… but only from within the single market, where they had unrestricted access to the talent and economies of the EU.

This is why Musk and co are trying to speedrun robot development.

Nobody is programming those laws because it’s not possible with the way that LLMs are currently built and trained. Instead of The Three Laws, which are inviolable but in certain edge cases insufficient, we have Anthropic’s Constitution, which is 23,000 words worth of good intentions which Claude should keep in the back of its mind while it does whatever it wants to do.

Sounds like you’re early on in the game, just take your time with it and enjoy it. In real life there are a lot of things you can do to simplify your life or connect with nature, from just finding local hiking trails all the way up to living completely off grid. Everything is a compromise though, so just take things one step at a time and see where you are most comfortable.

My thought process;

’But why? She died! Dexter barely even knew her, he just helped to cover it up, she was Jessie’s girlfriend… oh, wait, that was Breaking Bad.’

I hate my brain.

Currently the AI only runs for a short time after you provide a prompt. So say you ask it to ‘draft a letter to my congressman demanding an end to the war’, the AI will read what you wrote and output its interpretation of what you want, then it will stop.

What they’re talking about here is something very different, something which can continue processing inputs all of the time. It would be ‘aware’ of (depending on what you give it access to) emails coming in, what you’re working on in other programs, calendar events, etc. The idea is that it could potentially interrupt you with suggestions, maybe even anticipate what you will want and do it for you.

Obviously this is going to be risky at first. We’ve already seen stories of AIs deleting entire projects, what could they get up to if they’re allowed to be your online stand-in with access to everything on your device?

sesquipedalianist

 A person who tends to use and enjoy long words.

I find it hard to visualise pictures but I am good at imagining how things relate to each other in space and how they move. For example, if I try to imagine a scene of somebody playing on a swing hanging from the branch of a tree, if I focus hard I can ‘see’ parts of it; the rough, frayed rope, the look of joy on the kid’s face, or whatever, but only one at a time. But I can easily imagine how the swing moves, how the rider leans back or forward to make it go higher. I don’t need to ‘see’ the image for this, it’s more abstract.