A couple things to remember:

1. bad news sells better than good (we may wish for it to be different, but that's the current reality).
2. News companies are out to make money, so they will push anything that will increase profits (there are limits in place for commercial companies, wither they're in the right places is open for debate)
3. We have more access to information/new than any time in history. The internet enables anyone to have a global audience (and make more profit by having a larger audience), so the pressure to verify and confirm that you have good news is often lost.

All three of these combine to push bad news harder and harder. Which makes it seem alot bleaker than it actually is, since everyone is pushing doom and gloom, and you have to go looking for the good news.

The reality is there's always some bad things going on (and life changing inventions just on the horizon). The only difference is today the bad news is forced in front of you and you can't escape it without completely unplugging (which would mean missing out on current culture)

If there is a problem wit AGI and it turns against us, it will happen so fast you will barely feel anything. Probably a biological weapon.

If AI is our tool, we will advance to a place of abundance. Which is worth all the risk.

Regarding climate change, AI would get as faster than climate problems. Yet a more automated civilization could also solve the climate problem.

You are delusional to think we can "fix" climate change without radically changing Our way of life. Nice copium

I’m not knocking the tech and I know the math… and as far as where we are today in our energy needs it’s promising, in my opinion things like nuclear are still superior because of shear energy density. Thorium is 35 times more energy dense than Uranium. 1 Kg of Uranium has an energy density of 45,000 kWh, 1 Kg of oil 12 kWh and 1 Kg coal only having 8kWh.

Your grandfather was some scientist?

It’s the horizon- you can’t make it there.

CEOs will never automate their own jobs. Gotta have someone to keep all the profits. Get an MBA and you’ll be fine… 😂🤣😭💀

I wonder though, would education still be a thing in that best case scenario you mentioned? Imo, it would still be very important to teach some sort of curriculum as well as work ethic rather than just let every desire be picked and chosen at a whim.

[removed]

Arguments like this are basic and don't really reflect how AI will impact our lives. It's gonna be a LOT more sad than ya think. As in pathetic.

The creep from AI into day to day living will be entirely financially based as how can AI save businesses money. Most consequences people will suffer will come from this. It won't be just job losses but it will come in people being forced to use products and services that have less QA, customer service capability, or shelf life.

Day to day life with AI will just become more and more frustrating for people. It will just gut the shit outta the middle class as well.

Will there be cool AI applications? Hell yeah! But most people won't reap the benefits of it. Amazing new technologies will only benefit most people if it allows them to live at a lower price point.

Every incremental step forward requires an exponential growth in computer power.

If you double computer power every couple of years, you can make a small step forward. There will be no giant leap.

100%

In the 60s 70s, AI was'just around the corner'.

I studied AI in 1980 and AI just around the corner.

Now, after another 40 years, it is just around the corner.

stop watching so many scifi movies and youtube videos

Of course AlphaZero had labeled data. We already know how to detect when the game is won, we just don't know what moves are good to get there. The AI just did moves and the right answer = winning the game. The beauty was it could play against itself vs human players.

For AGI we don't know how to detect "winning the game".

It’s corny because a lot of you are using it to mock anyone with concerns over rapidly advancing AI tech, and those who prefer to stick to traditional ways/develop their own skills. Neither of which are inherently worthy of scorn.

And Tech Bro is just a general term for a guy working/interested in Tech, which is what the vast majority of people here are, including the guy I was responding to. So I’m confused why you take objection to that term?

You have well and truly missed the core point which the story of the Lorax is trying to make. This is quite an achievement, as both my children grasped it by age 3 or 4.

For a proper reference and development over time across all PV technologies, see here: https://www.nrel.gov/pv/assets/pdfs/best-research-cell-efficiencies.pdf Perovskites (which are a range of materials that only share the perovskite structure) are in that graphic the red round dots with yellow filling.

Which part?

Union Pay scales are pretty easy to find online and they’re not shy about it.

Figure out how to convince elected officials to spread the wealth and leisure gained from automation around to more people than the assholes who happen to be in the corner offices?

Full direct sun is around 1000W/m2. A tennis court is around 200m2. 200kW can power a large office building with a roof area of multiple tennis courts.

If we had 100% efficient solar panels, humanity would be set for a very long time.

Clickbait title then

It is easy to do, if the best you can do is toss government statistics around and what you THINK goes on in the trades then by all means do so.

Tradesmen to travel get per-diem which isn’t considered “income” yet is money you get all the same.

I’m sure glad I didn’t pay any mind to BLS numbers, I’d like have stayed away from the trades, but now that I’m in them I’ve found that not only are those numbers largely nonsense, I’ve also found that $100k isn’t all that high in terms of income in the blue collar world.

Go to a HCOL area and many of the union trades are payed $60+hr

Yeah but 1kW per square meter would still kick ass.

After a bit of digging, it looks like the 250% efficiency increase is just in relation to the existing performance of perovskite-based solar panels, not versus silicon solar panels. I was unable to find a straight comparison to silicon cell efficiency, merely that the new techniques make them an "equally efficient replacement for silicon."

You mean it didn’t come up with those ideas on its own? I’m shocked - shocked I say!