Asked my sister who’s a medicinal professional, not a doctor but she’s higher than a nurse, and she says that it all comes down to the chemicals in your brain and your environment and that implants would be incredibly hard to mimic healthy neurons.

Probably pretty good. The problems people worry about are the ones they solve

[deleted]

Its absolutely important that you listen to me now: dont take advice from reddit. It can do you no good.

Seriously the average demographics on reddit is very very young and most teens are at best very naive, at worse cynical arseholes. Mute some subs and live happy.

It's almost like ideas and arguments can be made independently of one another and we were having an entirely different conversation until you derailed it on a tangent. Bye now.

[removed]

Psych disorders are a combination of lifestyle (and their consequences like gut biome, malnutrition, lack of exercise, etc.) and trauma responses. Genetic engineering can only do so much to fix one, and would have to resort to mentally numbing you to fix the other.

Some do not all have 5G LTE. There are applications in private security and government in developing countries that don't even have functioning mobile networks yet (PNG springs to mind). But they do need network connected surveilance cameras across sites. Starlink is a good application of this.

Im not saying AI doesn’t have applications, but it’s pretty unlikely at this stage it can kill humans.

I'm not the one with an agenda. I said permanently changing other people's genome might be risky and unethical which matches the subject of the OP. You decided to go off on drugs for some strange reason.

Edit: You also know the OP is talking about gene therapy, right? If therapy is the first measure, then gene therapy is one of those steps to be taken before drugs.

Edit 2: Ha, he blocked me which means I can respond no further. The guy wanted to be pedantic and pull an "Um actually..." I knew he was never explicitly promoting gene therapy, but by never acknowledging its potential risks, he implicitly supported it over medications.

The fact that the OP threw ADHD in with more serious issues implies that the OP sees neurodiversity as a problem that must be solved instead of part of what makes an individual unique and special. Anyone who thinks that genetic manipulation is the method to fix minor differences in humanity is one small step from eugenics and the uber mensch.

All this guy had to say was that he felt that the permanent change from genetic manipulation was the same as the potential permanent side effects of medications and I would have backed off. But he never wanted to acknowledge what I said because it would have undermined his original statement.

He also could have downvoted me and moved on with his life as my post got downvoted into oblivion. He threw the first punch hoping for a knockout. But he just had some anti drug agenda he wanted to push and, when he realized I wasn't falling for it, he blocked me so he could pretend he won. If I blocked him, it would have meant he won, but him blocking me means he realized he couldn't win and blocked me so I couldn't get the last word.

And don't think for a moment that I think I won. I didn't win. To win would be to get him to acknowledge what I said had merit even if he wished I would have said more, which he didn't do. All I did was not back down and, in doing so, I chased him off.

Winning on Reddit involves a meeting of minds where both people walk away feeling better for the conversation. No, I didn't win. We all lost.

I would rather AI kill humans than to hear the 3 laws of robotics again.

Artificial general intelligence could likely not be constrained by rules if it were more intelligent than a human.

This is because we likely won’t understand how exactly such an advanced system would function, as it would have to be designed mostly by another AI.

A super AI probably wouldn’t kill us on purpose, but by disregarding our interests, just as we disregard the interests of insects when they conflict with our own.

I am just parroting talking points I have heard from experts, but they sound reasonable to me.

Not sure about that, the service price would have to decrease tenfold, to be even in range of shared community access in developing countries. Unfortunately not many retail customers in a developing country will be able to pay 100$+ a month for internet access.

Besides, most developing countries have surprisingly robust LTE/5G connectivity, since there was never opportunity to make a wired infrastructure, while services like mobile banking are extremely common.

[deleted]

I'd be very careful in seeking factual answers from ChatGPT. ChatGPT can't provide refefences and citations, so it's very hard to back up its claims. It might make an answer that sounds convincing, there's no guarantee for it to be factual. It's a language model, not an encyclopedia.

Hmm, I wonder if ice would count as land. Or maybe everything below passenger airplanes does.

Don't forget developing countries. Some parts of the world don't even have viable mobile networks as yet. This will be a great alternative for them to waiting a few years for some sort of fibre/copper network connection for high bandwidth usage needs.

I guess it's ur projection of me and I believe it's who you really are insane and I think you can't be helped

[removed]

Not sure, but I'd imagine it would work near land as well (within a few kms), depends on beam width. Which would suit most people of smaller yachts most of the time, not great for the middle of the ocean though, but I believe there are other services for that.

What are the current challenges for military tools that this would resolve?

[deleted]

They are not going gentle in time . Time is an illusion for the perfect present to exist 36963∆

Unless you’re using it to not get murdered - that against TOS.

No one believed till the Cambridge analytica scam got exposed and the financial crises of America and we are paying the cost of the very same