Supposedly scientists and engineers have crossed the 30 year mark for perovskites cells. We’ll see.

Seems arrogant to think you can see the difference this time.

>How could the future be for young people?

Because old people die.

[removed]

I speak for the trees when I say the movie The Lorax was not about replacing trees with mechanical trees.

You have to just study what you personally find interesting and fulfilling. Generally, that is a good way to get a job as well because the more passionate you are about a subject, the more you want to learn about it, the more competent you will be. So if the singularity comes and nobody has a job, then at least you spent your time on something that was worthwhile to you.

You are really not following what is going on, or else you have closed your mind so much you can't process it. 90 years for general intelligence? Buddy, 30 years ago we didn't even have the internet. Or cell phones. Computers were .001% as fast as they are now. And technological progress speeds up, not slows down.

I don't think it is coming tomorrow or anything, but look at current AI models and tell me it will take 3 more internets worth of advancement to make them as smart as a human. Humans aren't even that smart!

>Skipping the obvious answer of "programmers will be the last people to be programmed out of a job."

This is a really terrible take. Programmers are going to be among the first to be replaced, or at least most of them. We already have AI models doing a big chunk of programming. Programming is just a language problem, and LLMs have proven to be really good at language.

[removed]

Tbh knowing how business work it wouldn't matter so long as it makes profit

Of course! But that’s one I’m willing to pay for

I'm on the same boat. I dont see how the system will work. Only way is a complete rethinking of humanity. Maybe some sort of UBI with the condition that you accomplish tasks in your hobbies and get some social contact that way. You cant just tell people to sit at home, people will absolutely go depressed.

Which is testament to Our scientific Evolution.

No, many of his decedent's are/were.

AI is only that way if you look at it as something of a monolithic entity. In a world with AI's there will be many AI's each with their own characteristics and identity. From that we'll get the variability in simulated creativity. Instead if you think of AI as a tool, what you have is something that can transform and actualize the simplest and smallest of human creative thoughts and ideas. The least creative and skilled people will be able to see their ideas given form. A person could write a simple poem and see it transformed into the visual, or extrapolated into a full story, or rendered into a movie. If every similarly capable AI were prompted to do the same task, the result would likely be distinct. Yes, AI acting in isolation will make many things even more disposable than they already are, but the individual can be enabled to create works instilled with personal value. Customization and personalization of media is what AI can bring us.

I’m struggling to see how you’re so confident that we aren’t on a path or close.

First, LLMs are neural nets— as our our brains. Second, one could make the argument that humans take in data and output “bullshit”.

So I guess I’m trying to see how we are different given what we’ve seen thus far. I’m again not claiming we are the same, but I am not finding anything showing why we’d be different.

Does that make sense? I guess it seems like your making a concrete claim of “these LLMs aren’t thinking, and it’s certain” and I’m saying, “how can we know that they aren’t similar to us? What evidence is there to show that?”

If you are trying to organize your life around robots taking jobs you might want to do. Good luck. If a singularity does happen, probably any job you can think of doing will be replaceable. Its impossible, just do what you enjoy, make money doing it. And thats that. Nothing else you can do

They'll become the slavedrivers. Look at gig apps, they maybe already are starting.

People hate communicating with machines and most people are really bad at it. Learn a language or three, (a programming language.)

You are trolling if you say you can't see the difference this time.

The past is the only empirical evidence we have and our remarkable ability at pattern recognition is what's helped us become apex predators and survive as a speciies to this point. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I have an honest question, why does a sub labeled futurology like to fear monger so many technological advancements? Yall need to rename the sub to preppers or something.

Things are going to change with the rise of ai, I'm choosing to go into it glass half full.

You underestimate the speed at which AI is already evolving. Technology is in development for years before it goes mainstream, and companies have already been using different types of AI for years. We will see massive displacement of workers within the next 3-5 years. First the AI will take most of the office and creative jobs, then the Teslabots will take all the blue collar jobs. People have already been losing their jobs to Ai, they just didn't know it.

Apologies, I assumed you were talking fusion. Either way the exact same arguments apply. Fission is still necessarily much more mechanically complicated than solar and will never be as reliable or maintenance free. I am also not sure how you are considering nuclear safer than solar, but in the long run the safety stuff gets solved either way so I wouldn’t hold that against either technology. Carbon neutrality is also a very complicated question, environmental impact is a difficult if not impossible thing to holistically judge.

Either way, there will always be situations where solar is a better energy production method than any kind of nuclear, and there will always be situations where any kind of nuclear is better than solar. As the technologies develop that crossover point will swing back and forth.

They also do not last nearly as long

Look, I'm reasonably confident that there will eventually be some sort of thinking machines. I definitely don't believe it's substrate dependent. That said, nothing we're currently doing suggests we're on the right path. Fairly simple algorithms output bullshit from a large dataset. No intentional stance, to borrow from Dennett, means no path to strong AI.

I'm as materialist as they come, but we're nowhere remotely close and LLMs are not the bridge.