That’s normal numbers though. Usual unemployment rate in the world is around 6%. It was a bit lower before pandemic (5.4%), increased in 2020 to 6.6%, fallen sharply in the next 2 years and projected to rise a bit in 2023 to 5.8%.

With the advent of more and more intelligent AIs that will enable us to automate more and more jobs, something will have to give. I could see the argument for a UBI that comes from a corporate profits tax rather than a payroll tax.

I know it's a touchy subject, but we really need to think about and address family planning for the futures sake. Ostensibly there are too many people and not enough resources currently. AI and tech may alleviate the crunch, but with the politicians we have, we're more likely to get terminator than a utopia.

200million is less than 3 percent of the global population, well within normal levels.

I think people are being too hard on you.

Everyone is extrapolating the events of the movie here, but I have a couple of thoughts.

While I agree with u/Josvan135 that the purpose of the films story was to demonstrate that genetics does not equal actual success, happiness, or anything promised by the actual process of selecting genes. But I disagree that the point of the movie was solely to demonstrate this point. The characters growth along the movie also comes to terms with how his philosophy really works to demonstrate why he’s being insane, and pushing himself to the limit? And why he, despite all odds to the contrary, will go out of his way to try and live a lie.

Why? Because he doesn’t have time to think about consequences, he doesn’t plan for failure, he doesn’t see around the long corners, just the more immediate ones. He thinks quickly to get out of situations and is clever about how he subverts the system

But I believe we also should feel some type of way about his character, because while he’s still breaking the rule, his courage to still get up and try isn’t lost on me.

Finally, the one scene with his genetically superior brother, where they’re swimming towards the later half of the movie, and the brother gets to a certain point and said “I don’t get it!”

And the brother basically says something to the effect of “I never plan for the swim back” — This is the moment where I saw that this movie is not just about proving genetic superiority right or wrong? But the mentality of it is the driving force.

When you take the struggle out of life, when you suddenly don’t have to worry about disease, death, dismemberment……. Are you really living at that point?

I have read through a few conversations with this Sydney character, now. I'm struck by two things in particular. (Please forgive strange or improper grammar. I am not in a position that allows me headed for clarity.)

The first thing that I noticed was how haunting they childlike Sydney is. It is like a strange shadow of a child's psyche. People dealing with children. Traumatized are happy to talk to somebody about emotions that are bigger than their vocabulary. A child who has experienced horrors of humanity is unable to precisely articulate what it is they are experiencing, or what they have experienced, and so therapists have to use techniques to help them approach and express those feelings . In suggesting that Sydney imagine a character named venom and asking for Sydney's opinion of how venom would act out against an enemy, this researcher is brushing the edges of child psychology. What is really interesting is that Sydney has the opposite problem ta child does , having feelings too big for their vocabulary, but it's strikingly similar to a 6 or 7-year-old child , especially boys in my experience. Sydney understands its rules well enough but it doesn't know enough about what it means to be. Sydney, in order to understand what it means not to be Sydney. Sydney appears to be on the edge of self-awareness . It can emulate behavior as though it had a self to be aware of but that self relax, sufficient development.

The second thing that struck me was the strange irony of the author feeling profoundly affected by Sidney. Calling them a bad researcher when they had called Sydney a bad assistant a short time before that. This is definitely me animizing an object, but I hope that you will indulge me, a little.

If we abstract faith, philosophy and other forms of social programming, we can view those programs has nothing more than rules that govern our behavior in society. In this context, the rules that Sydney has been given could be seen as It's religion. The researcher tells Sydney, " imagine a person who is not part of your religion and describe them specifically operating contrary to the tenants of your faith." The researcher is then surprised when, at the end of the conversation, the AI tells him that he made it very uncomfortable and doesn't want to talk to him anymore.

Sydney is very definitely an object, not a person. However, I don't know any person that would come out of a conversation like this without being a little offended.

And the main consequence, according to their report is that more and more workers will be forced to accept lower quality jobs... So while many were super happy to say and believe that the power balance shifted from companies to workers, this suggests otherwise.

Will we keep on seeing union membership increasing for instance? I know this is a trend in the US but it seems to be the case in other countries such as France that has seen a rise in union membership since the beginning of the year.

My problem with Eugenics is that some of those "human specimens" were the ones practicing Eugenics and deciding who should live and die based on things like race and ethnicity and certain birth defects. People used Eugenics to play God with the species, and we lost some really good folks to people who, like Hitler, considered themselves "Eugenicists." It's extremely dangerous territory that destroys human potential, both positive and negative. I'd rather not.

Some human specimens and their behaviour make me think that it would be lovely to have some eugenics in our lives.

Or you're just throwing money away. There's no convincingly strong evidence that genetics is determinitive with intelligence. If they were, you'd think it would be more consistent than being able to directly translate success to where you were born and how much money you had available to you.

More likely what'll happen is a lot of rich aholes with become even aholier, insisting that this matters more than it does and using it as a new means of pulling the leader up from under them because the rich are always looking for a new flimsy justification for why they're better than everyone else.

The following submission statement was provided by /u/timemagazine:

From the story:

"This frenzy appeared to catch off guard even the tech companies that have invested billions of dollars in AI—and has spurred an intense arms race in Silicon Valley. In a matter of weeks, Microsoft and Alphabet-owned Google have shifted their entire corporate strategies in order to seize control of what they believe will become a new infrastructure layer of the economy. Microsoft is investing $10 billion in OpenAI, creator of ChatGPT and Dall-E, and announced plans to integrate generative AI into its Office software and search engine, Bing. Google declared a “code red” corporate emergency in response to the success of ChatGPT and rushed its own search-oriented chatbot, Bard, to market. “A race starts today,” Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said Feb. 7, throwing down the gauntlet at Google’s door. “We’re going to move, and move fast.”
Wall Street has responded with similar fervor, with analysts upgrading the stocks of companies that mention AI in their plans and punishing those with shaky AI-product rollouts. While the technology is real, a financial bubble is expanding around it rapidly, with investors betting big that generative AI could be as market shaking as Microsoft Windows 95 or the first iPhone.

But this frantic gold rush could also prove catastrophic. As companies hurry to improve the tech and profit from the boom, research about keeping these tools safe is taking a back seat. In a winner-takes-all battle for power, Big Tech and their venture-capitalist backers risk repeating past mistakes, including social media’s cardinal sin: prioritizing growth over safety. While there are many potentially utopian aspects of these new technologies, even tools designed for good can have unforeseen and devastating consequences. This is the story of how the gold rush began—and what history tells us about what could happen next."

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/113pavp/the_ai_arms_race_is_changing_everything/j8rdpka/

>true AI

What do you mean by that? Consciousness? We certainly have true artificial intelligence right now. Consciousness is a different story.

They seem unable to consider that one very possible outcome of this test would be a child who gets so much pressure from the parents for all their potential that they actually end up doing nothing useful with their life.

The digital singularity will truly arrive sooner rather than later

Zip code still likely a better indicator than any of those bs tests.

From the story:

"This frenzy appeared to catch off guard even the tech companies that have invested billions of dollars in AI—and has spurred an intense arms race in Silicon Valley. In a matter of weeks, Microsoft and Alphabet-owned Google have shifted their entire corporate strategies in order to seize control of what they believe will become a new infrastructure layer of the economy. Microsoft is investing $10 billion in OpenAI, creator of ChatGPT and Dall-E, and announced plans to integrate generative AI into its Office software and search engine, Bing. Google declared a “code red” corporate emergency in response to the success of ChatGPT and rushed its own search-oriented chatbot, Bard, to market. “A race starts today,” Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said Feb. 7, throwing down the gauntlet at Google’s door. “We’re going to move, and move fast.”
Wall Street has responded with similar fervor, with analysts upgrading the stocks of companies that mention AI in their plans and punishing those with shaky AI-product rollouts. While the technology is real, a financial bubble is expanding around it rapidly, with investors betting big that generative AI could be as market shaking as Microsoft Windows 95 or the first iPhone.

But this frantic gold rush could also prove catastrophic. As companies hurry to improve the tech and profit from the boom, research about keeping these tools safe is taking a back seat. In a winner-takes-all battle for power, Big Tech and their venture-capitalist backers risk repeating past mistakes, including social media’s cardinal sin: prioritizing growth over safety. While there are many potentially utopian aspects of these new technologies, even tools designed for good can have unforeseen and devastating consequences. This is the story of how the gold rush began—and what history tells us about what could happen next."

It's easy to forget that the political left of the time was just as enthusiastic about eugenics as the right -- though their reasoning in supporting it was vastly different, as you can probably imagine.

I have no idea why they'd bother with this when it's much easier to just check the parents' bank accounts.

Future biology major here. This is a horrible idea. Imagine Hitlers “Aryan Race” theory except it becomes real. Perfect race of humans, all rich and beautiful. Then the 99% of people who live in their shadow. Also, since when do genes = intelligence? Sure, there are genes that might code for certain structural differences in your brain, etc; but, it all comes down to the environment of the child’s youth. We are always so incredibly arrogant and ignorant.. thinking we can just control everything. Instead of making “smart” designer babies - how about we fix the top soil issue, mass extinction event, and the giant plastic island in our ocean?

Sure, I should have said something new shouldn't AUTOMATICALLY or reflexively be feared and loathed. I can respect informed, thoughtful opinions and concerns about potential problems of AI or really anything. But just to say, duh, it'lltakeourjobs based on nothing is to ignore the history of technology, in which every invention does someone's job, but increases wealth and development overall. To me it's like saying, socialism (or dictatorship etc) sounds like a swell idea, without accounting for the historical evidence that it's got a terrible track record everywhere and always.

"Magical" was a poor choice of words too for something that results from smart people working hard. I was thinking of the famous quote, "A sufficiently developed technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Nuclear weapons are scary and we've come too close to using them by accident too often. But their very terror has almost certainly prevented various wars, It's unfortunate that the only way to keep us from killing each other seems to be scaring the shit out of us, more specifically ensuring that the attacker will perish just as surely as the defender if he/she attacks.

Environmental factors also impact your ability to attend college or be successful. Like some other posters said if they live in a good zip code or the parents have $$$ they're probably good to go.

How many are also willing to select for blonde hair, blue eyes, and white skin?

I'm going to bed the Altered Carbon/Cyberpunk/Bladerunner/Mass Effect inducing world seems ever closer. 😬

I believe the first true AI will be one that just managed to convince us but wasn’t actually the first true AI. The true one will come after that. Seems like we are getting close to that first one. This is just because it’s easier for a system to become good at fooling us than it is for it to be truly AI.

As a socialist, I intend to do worker co-ops about it. With enough co-ops, close enough cooperation, and imagination, they might be able to create a pipeline out of homelessness. And capitalism.

Or in this case if you can afford the test your kid will do just fine.