Do you have inside information that we do not on how this technology works? No offense, but your degree means you know a certain determined extent of human knowledge of a subject. It does not mean you know the secrets of the universe, including every human invention that can and will exist. If this was the case, your rockets would be landing themselves instead of SpaceX. I'd also like to point out the quantity of PhD holders that stood in the way of SpaceX and many other revolutionary companies that have brought about technological change. Let's see the data first, or did they not teach you the scientific method while you were obtaining that fancy degree?

What makes you think we were discussing you?

I'm more concerned with the data. It will either work or it will not. Everyone was critical of SpaceX before they did what they had done. I see no reason to either doubt or believe a company until I have been given a reason to do so.

I have a PhD in physics. Extraordinary claims that break physics as we know it require extraordinary evidence. These kind of bullshit pops up regularly and it always amounts nothing.

How can you conclude that when we don't know how it works? I say we wait for the results from space to draw conclusions. I'm still skeptical, but I'm also against damning technology that I don't understand just to sound edgy.

You're a therapist and have this opinion? Wow, how times have changed in the last 61 years since the advent of ELIZA.

Actually electricity is fuel. Electrons have mass. If it doesn't expell electrons and is self-contained, we will have to wait for their explanation of exactly how it works.

Some of these "objects" may be projections. The "dot" at the end of a laser pointer defies physics too if you were only to think of it as a physical object of approximately the same size.

I think there are a few tricks military R&D came up with to have people chasing phantoms, but they don't always fill in the public if they see some use outside of a testing range.

For example you might have a beam emitter on the ground that's tuned to around half the frequency needed to excite atmospheric gases. Then you use two of them that are synchronized and phase shifted, and where the two beams overlap - it effectively starts to excite the gas in that zone into ionization. It starts emitting light, and will also reflect radar.

With something like that, you can have other people chasing that around just like you would your pet with a laser pointer.

Not saying all UFO's are that, but some of the current tech developments make this kind of electronic warfare stuff quite possible since it does have some uses. (Other than creating false returns to have somebody chase, it can be used to reflect narrow beam communications or for stuff like over-the-horizon RADAR.)

The kinds of jobs that aren't already subject to outsourcing. Mostly trades work with heavy and/or high-risk labor.

If it's something that can be done over the phone like a call-center worker, it can be done by an AI at some point. At least the time window for it happening is significantly narrow.

I think a major warning sign would be if they launch a SPAC while launching this.

Electricity isn't a fuel.

Reactionless typically means that it does not expell mass which it claims to not do.

This is the more extreme cases which preferably be done by real therapists yeah, but much off the world population has no acces to therapy and an AI semi-therapists that could help ppl with mundane therapy would seem helpful and could help avoid ppl needing actual therapy later.

Also a lot off ppl that do need therapy don't take that step to go into therapy because it's a daunting thing too many or they think they don't need it, but being able to talk to an app on their phone about their issues could help and if it's anything serious the AI could refer them to a real therapist.

happy to keep blowing holes in your rants in between my rocket science day job.

Social engineering is a manipulation technique that exploits human error to gain private information, access, or valuables. In cybercrime, these “human hacking” scams tend to lure unsuspecting users into exposing data, spreading malware infections, or giving access to restricted systems.

Yeah this breaks conservation of momentum.

>Could you find a disinterested party to judge the ethics of this civilization wide choice? Yes. But the chances of that individual being familiar with all the socioeconomic implications and ramifications of judgements related to this topic are pretty low.

This doesn't matter. It's not a civilization-wide choice. There's no reason to judge it ethically at the civilization-wide scale.

>Then they are not disinterested.

Of course nobody is perfectly disinterested. But they are much, much more disinterested than interested. The point is finding an infinitesimally interested person, not a literally 100% disinterested person.

>My point is that, to judge the entire human civilization as a whole, you must find someone 100% disinterested.

But there's no need to judge the entire human civilization as a whole. It's irrelevant. Remember, there are only 2 contexts of interest. One, making AI ethical, which is just making an AI's ethics correspond to a BI's ethics. And two, making more decisions more ethically, which can be accomplished by outsourcing ethical questions to disinterested third parties. Why do you think judging human civilization as a whole on ethics is meaningful? Why do you think it's relevant?

>If you don't, then every decision they make will be questioned and rightfully so.

Who is they? Every decision can rightfully be questioned already. To make decisions more ethically, get disinterested third parties to make more of them.

>Individual decisions can be ethical but, when combined, the sum total choice can be unethical.

No, they can't. Any self-inconsistent moral/ethical system is wrong, because it is self-inconsistent.

>Here's another example.

I don't follow what the point of this example is. Every "should" is just you stating that you ethically prefer this course of action to alternatives. It has nothing to do with anything (that I can tell).

>Each of those individual decisions is perfectly ethical in a vacuum.

There's no such thing as "perfectly ethical". There are things that are objectively not-ethical, namely, any ethical system that's self-inconsistent or reality-inconsistent. But, every self-consistent and reality-consistent ethical system is equally valid. There is no dimension of "ethicality" over which we can measure ethical systems, or even individual ethical decisions. You can't assign a score to your ethical system and a different score to mine. Our ethical systems are either self-consistent and reality-consistent or wrong, but everything else about them is subjective and individual and immeasurable.

>They have no way to financially catch up with the rest of the world even though they shared their tribal knowledge 10, 20, or 50 years ago.

This has nothing to do with ethics. This is a problem (my opinion, your opinion) with capitalism. Capitalism is great for rapidly improving material conditions through specialization and trade, but, this is a huge problem. If wealth is very unequally distributed, trade between poors stops. To make capitalist / free market systems work beyond basic materialism, we need robust redistribution of wealth mechanisms, or the whole "game" grinds to a halt.

>civilization as a whole hasn't really cared about this.

Nor can it / "should" it. Wtf does this have to do with anything? This isn't an ethical question. It's not a civilization-wide decision. It's a collection of smaller decisions made by people and small groups of people. Why are you bringing this up?

>And even if you have this person a job, for life let's say, what's to stop them from becoming corrupt? What's to stop bribes or threats from happening? Who should pick this person? We've tried to do it to some extent with the United Nations, but you can easily see how effective they are when things like Ukraine rolls around.

Why are you talking about one person? You find the cheapest / least interested person or group of people for the specific decision in question, to improve ethicality / neutrality of decisions, and to reduce moral hazard.

>It's another reason why there can be no such thing as a disinterested party when it comes to humanity.

But there's no reason to find a disinterested party when it comes to humanity. Humanity doesn't make any decisions as a group.

>It is just another reason why you have to move beyond the earth of you wish to evaluate the ethics of the earth.

Again, what's the reason for "evaluating the ethics of the earth"? The point in this conversation is to make more ethical decisions, which is easily accomplished by outsourcing them to disinterested third parties. The original premise, making AI ethical, is unimportant, because that simply means making an AI's ethics align with a particular BI, which is meaningless, because ethics are subjective and individual.

>I was trying to make a cheeky comment on humanity and describe a wish for something that could never happen.

What wish is that?

Human ethics should be monitored by disinterested third parties, more of the time, because it will improve the neutrality / ethicality of decisions, which will make the world a better place.

I don't get why you're stuck on this idea that one singular third party must monitor all of humanity / civilization as a whole, at once. What good is that wish? That's why I originally replied, that I get your cheap joke, but this is actually a very good idea, one we already implement, and that we should implement more of, to make the world better by making more ethical decisions.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outlandish

I’m curious how is it outlandish? There are far older solar systems then ours in our galaxy, and even older ones in other galaxies. I’m not saying you are wrong because the opposite hasn’t been proven either. All I’m saying is with how many stars and systems that are in our galaxy alone, the chances of a species of a highly intelligent and technologically advanced civilization is very likely.

If they sent it up for hype knowing it wasn't real, the data would immediately invalidate it, which I'm assuming they know. I do agree that it will either be revolutionary or it simply won't work.

trends.co and explodingideas.co have been featuring some lately. founder is a quick one that comes to mind lol but in all serious highest levels of management are probably the most secure. so the ones who run the departments like CTO, Head of marketing, partnership roles etc., roles that take strategy and/or personal relationships

>There are no decisions made by the group as a whole, though, so let's just make more ethical decisions by outsourcing more of our contentious decisions to disinterested third parties.

This is an ignorant statement. We are a civilization with world wide communication. There are things that we find acceptable and things we do not. For instance, most of the world is totally fine with abusing cheap Chinese labor so that we can have cell phones. Could you find a disinterested party to judge the ethics of this civilization wide choice? Yes. But the chances of that individual being familiar with all the socioeconomic implications and ramifications of judgements related to this topic are pretty low.

>No. It will be one who is (judged, fallibly, by humans as) least likely to be affected by the decision in question. A person may not be part of the group(s) yet, but could easily become part of the group(s), have a friend or family member that's part of the group(s) already, have a friend or family member become part of the group(s), or be affected by the group(s)' decisions.

Then they are not disinterested. There are times, especially in the court of law, where there is no such thing as a disinterested party. In those cases, you have to try to find the least interested party because it would be irresponsible to do otherwise. That may be your point, but it isn't mine. My point is that, to judge the entire human civilization as a whole, you must find someone 100% disinterested. If you don't, then every decision they make will be questioned and rightfully so.

>There's no reason to judge the ethics of more than a single decision at a time, ever.

Again, a very ignorant statement. Individual decisions can be ethical but, when combined, the sum total choice can be unethical.

Here's another example. Should we cure disease? Yes. Should we search the world for cures? Yes. Should we interact with small tribes to help us find these cures? Yes. Should we pay these tribes for the cures they have? Yes. Should we pay them in US dollars? No, they have no use for our currency. Should we pay them with other forms of tender and in amounts that they find adequate for payment? Yes. Should the people who went through the effort of finding these tribes be allowed to make money off of these new cures? Yes.

Each of those individual decisions is perfectly ethical in a vacuum. But the moment you put all these choices together, you end up creating a situation where these small tribes, when they choose to join the larger world, have nothing that the world wants anymore. They have no way to financially catch up with the rest of the world even though they shared their tribal knowledge 10, 20, or 50 years ago. They were paid, at the time of sharing their knowledge, an amount that was adequate in their small economy, but it was peanuts in the world economy and was essentially nothing compared to the amount of money that some corporation made off of their IP. This type of exploitation has been happening for decades, if not centuries.

Again, civilization as a whole hasn't really cared about this. We benefit because we might have a drug that can fight the latest drug resistant bacteria and so we ignore the exploitation that occurred to get us that drug. Again, could you find a disinterested party? Yes. But it would be very difficult to find one who also understands the domino effect of the combined set of decisions.

And even if you have this person a job, for life let's say, what's to stop them from becoming corrupt? What's to stop bribes or threats from happening? Who should pick this person? We've tried to do it to some extent with the United Nations, but you can easily see how effective they are when things like Ukraine rolls around.

>Ethics are subjective...

This is about the only thing we can seem to agree on. It's another reason why there can be no such thing as a disinterested party when it comes to humanity. Since each individual has their own set of ethics, there are no figuratively universal ethics. Even past civilizations have considered certain things to be ethical, such as cannibalism or child sacrifice, that most people today would find abhorrent.

It is just another reason why you have to move beyond the earth of you wish to evaluate the ethics of the earth. If you assume a single ET civilization, you can assume many ET civilizations. If you assume many, then you can assume that they have spoken and agreed on a basic set of ethical laws. Then those basic ethical laws can be applied to humanity to determine how ethical we are in a literally universal sense.

Please just stop responding. I was trying to make a cheeky comment on humanity and describe a wish for something that could never happen. If you are trying to explain to me how it could happen and should happen, then you aren't comprehending what I'm talking about and you are taking my comment too seriously. It would be like if I wished for a time machine so I could go back and kill Hitler and you responded by telling me that I could achieve a similar effect by taking some realistic steps. You could be right, but that wasn't the point of what I was saying.

Incorrect. It says no solid, liquid, or gas fuel. They also say it uses solely electricity. I also do not see a claim of it being reactionless, and I have been searching high and low for more information. Apparently, this stems from quantized inertia.

This is either going to be revolutionary or one of the most expensive hype campaigns ever.

They claim no fuel which means it's reactionless.

Lol what? A therapist would be one of the first things to go, along with lawyers, and any other profession that is applying text (Freud, skinner, etc) whoever, to derive treatment. Chatgpt would be like house MD for therapists, unless you mean physical but same deal, just prescribe exercises

I’m not saying people can’t get hacked. Do you even know what hacking is?

I’m not moving goal posts. I’m stating facts; you’re the ones who can’t understand logic versus what you ‘think’ in your own minds is equal. So sad to see the lot of you, no wonder you’re on reddit constantly replying to my comments. You all have nothing better to do

Edit: To prove a point it’s not my fault you people don’t know the definition of ‘hacking’.

Bribing, breaking in, black mailing is not ‘hacking’