[removed]

I had it help me with some code that I've been struggling with

AI Dungeon is nominally a CYOA generator but in practice is a platform for single player text porn. Thus, it hits the perfect venn diagram of things people want but don't want to pay for.

I know a certain large airplane manufacturer has asked some engineers to evaluate the chat to create boiler plate faa documents.

asked it at lot of questions, the answers were good, but not exceptional, not super impressed.

depends on profitable business, as in youtube videos generate ad rev which can be a decent amount based on views.

i know people have used it at their jobs to simplfy tasks. (you could consider this income since they are paid by hour)

Im sure some people probably has helped them reform ideas they have had for products or business.

you could use it to help generate childerns books.

you could use it to help with marketing.

etc

Product description, target market, and keywords.

GPT3 has been longer out and Jasper alone has a unicorn valuation.

I use several GPT products at work. Right now we're just in a state of creation The bad products will start dropping off and more mainstream options will emerge from the chaos.

I've used it for routine, boring tasks as well, and it is good at generating large amounts of things for simple requirements, as long as you edit it afterwards. I've also used it for some summaries/things like this, and it's OK not great.

But that's sort of the most capability I've seen it have.

ya. good point. i just think we don’t fully know if it’s propaganda or not.

Do you give it a brief?

I’ve been using it for marketing copy and caption drafts, as well as content ideas. It’s remarkably good at that and has saved me a lot of time on the first stages of a campaign.

[removed]

its worse than a 0, it will actually cause harm of some kind

If I recall, isn’t this just another rehash of the “EmDrive” thing? The EmDrive was already proven to not work, at all. And now this “Quantum Drive” that supposedly works on the same principle.

I'm Iowan.

Ouch, bro. Ouch.

its so pathetic its makes u wonder whether the people that believe it deserve to live

Same thought. It's crazy how accurate it is on so many levels.

Could you give an example?

About 3 typical EV battery packs. Six for redundancy.

I mean, yeah, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call chinese propaganda propaganda, we should call every country's propaganda propaganda.

Since you're not giving me any substantial reasoning to argue against, I'll just elaborate about my position. I'm not claiming any absolutes, but I do think that what we do now can affect the probabilities of one or another long term outcomes.

I basically feel like a dead universe is less interesting than one with life in it, because a dead universe is going to decay and destroy itself relatively predictively, but a universe with intelligent life existing for long periods of time is more dynamic and might do some pretty interesting things. There's no apparent objective meaning about the two possibilities, it's just my opinion that the dynamic nature of intelligent life is more interesting.

In light of this, I prefer that human life survives and figures out how to colonize space without destroying itself, because that would increase the potential longevity of earth life in the universe, which is the only life we have reasonable evidence of. If we can achieve space colonization - a near-term goal compared to our timeline of the lifespan of the universe - then the probability of earth life/intelligence organizing the universe such that the nature of its demise is affected goes from zero to potentially non-zero. You don't know that there is definitely no way for this to happen, except that it's obvious that life or intelligence can't change the universe if it doesn't exist. Thus if we colonize space, we are creating the possibility of outliving the solar system, which allows for some potentiality to affect the universe at extremely long time scales.

On the topic of determining what the best moves to prevent our extinction in this century are, I'd say that being very careful and wary of ethics in the development of AGI, nanorobotics, and genetic engineering are probably most important. Mitigation of ecological damage feels like it'd be next, then probably climate change, then probably we need cheaper desalination to curb conflict as we get past the middle of the century, and hopefully the risk of all-out nuclear war doesn't get too high. It would be nice to have a backup human colony in case something goes really wrong on earth during this dangerous period of technological development, but not at significant expense to these priorities. But on that note, society is nowhere close to optimally addressing humanity's risks and desires. Whether or not you think space colonization is worth any of our resources or not seems secondary to the ridiculous waste and inefficiency of the economy in general, which begs the question "how would you actually want to try to change things?"

It's already hard to see how we can even get future technologies developed with equity in mind, I really can't see how someone could expect it's possible to get all powerful people to forever abstain from creating incredibly powerful technologies, short of killing everyone, which defeats the purpose. So we have to deal with these risks and challenges, and we don't seem to have the option of doing it in an optimal fashion, so it's best to focus on what can actually be done to improve the future. Contributing to certain social movements or technological developments is the bulk of people's options for how to make impactful contributions. Working to make the development of technologies safe and their implementation ethical, and mitigating risks to communities and civilization at large are good ways to try to contribute in my opinion. If space colonization is something you can find a way to contribute to, I see that as being positive.

You're gonna need a whole lot of batteries to support 2 weeks of energy needs

Very interesting. I wonder how he was involved, if at all?

Mike McCulloch received DARPA funding to develop and test his QI theory. As his blog explains, he knew about this new thruster beforehand but could not talk about it until recently because of an NDA he signed with the company.