We always see posts about ice melting, but we never see posts about other areas which are growing. Odd.

Al Gore and Obama are crying at thier million dollar beachfront properties. So sad.

[removed]

Assuming a 1 AU sphere for the original design spec, and assuming you want statites, then your target areal mass is around 1.6 g/m^2 .

Taking my 10% coverage estimate, the factored surface area of a 1 AU sphere is 2.81e22 m^2 or 4.5e19 kg of material. 2% of the Belt, assuming every rock is made of aluminum.

Where does the journal Cell fit into this? Is it not as prestigious? Sincere question as I'm mostly not knowledgeable.

you use the word undeniably but I've never seen actual proof of consciousness

So i have 4 lines, 3 of them are drive throughs. so you are telling me that an AI can tell the difference between a line of cars in a parking lot, a line of cars on a road, a line of cars parked on the side of the road, and a line of cars at a drive through? what distinguishing characteristics do each of these lines have that would tip off the AI to which 3 are the drive throughs?

Once we emit about 1000 gigatons of carbon, much of the massive ice sheet will melt irreversibly. We’ve emitted 500 gigatons so far.

The Greenland Ice Sheet covers 1.7 million square kilometers (660,200 square miles) in the Arctic. If it melts entirely, global sea level would rise about 7 meters (23 feet), but scientists aren’t sure how quickly the ice sheet could melt. Modeling tipping points, which are critical thresholds where a system behavior irreversibly changes, helps researchers find out when that melt might occur.

Based in part on carbon emissions, a new study using simulations identified two tipping points for the Greenland Ice Sheet: releasing 1000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere will cause the southern portion of the ice sheet to melt; about 2500 gigatons of carbon means permanent loss of nearly the entire ice sheet.

Having emitted about 500 gigatons of carbon, we’re about halfway to the first tipping point.

I agree that chemo and radiation are not great options for fighting cancer. The fact that they have off-target effects is a problem, and that's my point; that it's difficult to only target the cancer.

How do you get CRISPR delivered to tumorigenic cells without targeting normal healthy tissue? Targeting anything to specifically hit cancer is tough because cancer presents so similarly to healthy tissue. If you have any papers that discuss this cancer-specific CRISPR targeting I would love to read them because I haven't seen anything about it that's unique to the CRISPR system.

>last century.

Jesus I'm old.

I never said it was an AGI. But. It's gonna be. And in less than 3 years I prophesy. And very shortly after that, between 6 months and one year, it's gonna be an ASI. And ASI=TS Technological singularity is TS.

I am going to be proven correct.

>As of this commentary there is no such thing as AGI, that is "artificial general intelligence"--A form of AI that reasons and employs "common sense" just like a human, to figure out how to do things it has never been exposed to before. And don't forget--That AGI will also have unimaginable computing power behind it's human like thinking. Something humans don't have--yet, maybe... And we don't even know if such a thing is possible. But I suspect that given enough processing power, speed and access to big data and novel AI computing architectures, that a narrow AI (a computing algorithm that can only do one task, but with superhuman capability) will be able to effectively simulate or mimic the effect of AGI. Then my question is, does it matter if it is narrow AI simulating AGI or real honest to gosh AGI. Is there even a difference? My point being that narrow AI is very much in existence today. Consciousness and self-awareness are certainly not a requirement. And in fact a true EI (emergent intelligence--conscious and self-aware.) would be very undesirable. We don't need that kind of competition.

That is a self quote from my hub essay that I wrote in 2018. I saw it coming even then, although people like you, the AI experts, said no, that is not how AI works.

But that is exactly how people that know, like Sam Altman and Geoffrey Hinton see it. Further they are realizing that LLMs that are comprehensive enough, apparently begin to spontaneously demonstrate emergent traits. They become able to do things that they were not programmed to do.

And nobody knows why. The black box phenomenon growing larger and larger.

Don't take my word for it. Watch it from these guys yourself.

Geoffrey Hinton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpoRO378qRY

Sam Altman and his CTO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=540vzMlf-54

Oh. And former Alphabet CEO Eric Shmidt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg3EchbCcA0&t=734s

Here are some AI experts that are part of AI alignment efforts, discussing what is happening today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APliuwGYDNc

BTW all of these interviews are from less than two weeks ago. That is the impact of GPT-4.

>...CoPilot

Oh. Yer just a coder. I should have known. No, I don't doubt you use Chatgpt exponentially more than I do. It is a fantastic tool to make your tasks ever so much easier. Don't you understand that the reason it is of such incredibly good use to you is that it is exponentially itself developing into a more powerful AI. Did you know that GPT-4 can code at the level of a senior coder? Further it continuously improves based on input from coders like yourself to the model. Then OpenAI sends out little "updates" that demonstrate improvement. Your helpful tool that takes most of the stress off you is going to replace you in about two more years, if not sooner than that.

Right now GPT-4 is hobbled by not having access to training after Sep 2021 and very limited access to the internet. But in 3 to 6 months' time, you're gonna see some serious shizz. And one year from now? We can't model what GPT-4 will be capable of.

And that is how the TS rolls. I still maintain, somewhat reluctantly, that 2029 will be the year of the TS, but the release of GPT-4 may have profoundly changed the game. What do you imagine something like a "GPT-5" or whatever it's called, will be capable of? More importantly, when would it release? And for that matter what kind of unimaginable craziness are we yet to see in the balance of 2023 alone? I know that Nvidia is up to some kind of novel AI right now. I state to you, as a fact, there will be at least 4 more profound AI related news stories that will become public knowledge this year. Not all of them related to coding. But it may not matter either. My god! What we are talking about now, compared to 2018--a technological lifetime ago of 5 years. What will 5 years from today, 2028, look like. We can't model it.

See, now I'm wondering if there's actually enough material to build something like this.

The combined mass of the asteroid belt is about 2*(10^(21)) kg. Let's say R is the radius of the sphere, and it's 1000m thick. The radius is much larger than the thickness, so we can estimate the volume at 1000*4*pi*R^(2). As for the density, Aluminum is about 2700 kg/m^(3), and Iron/Steel is about 8000 kg/m^(3), so let's just say 5000 for the argument's sake.

So the we have R = sqrt(2*10^(21) / 5000*4000*pi) ~ 5.6*10^(6) m according to WolframAlpha. That's the radius of the sphere we would be able to build with all of the asteroid belt combined.

For scale, the orbit of Mercury is 43,000,000 km in its closest point to the sun, and our sphere's radius is about 60,000 km.

So unless I got the math really wrong, I'd say constructing any sort of Dyson sphere that's solid, has 100% coverage, and is large enough that the Earth still has sunlight, would probably mean we would have to disassemble planets, and even that might not be enough, as the mass we need would increase proportionately to R^(2), and a lot of the mass in the solar system isn't useful.

For now, let's focus on fixing some potholes or something.

>ReportSaveFollow

there are emergency ones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_heart

> In P12 Box SPM.1.1, and P14 note 25 (explicitly), both state net zero for that date.

I believe you're misreading; from p.12 Box SPM.1.1:
>> "scenarios with very low and low GHG emissions and CO2 emissions declining to net zero around or after 2050, followed by varying levels of net negative CO2 emissions23 (SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6), as illustrated in Figure SPM.4."

Both are net zero around or after 2050.

Similarly for p.14 Note 25:
>> "SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6 are scenarios that start in 2015 and have very low and low GHG emissions, respectively, and CO2 emissions declining to net zero around or after 2050, followed by varying levels of net negative CO2 emissions."

Both locations clearly note that the scenario may reach net zero after 2050.

> I think you're looking at the CO2 output only graph, i suspect perhaps in aggregate they provide net zero for 2050.

None of the other GHG graphs reach net zero even by 2100, so net zero GHG emissions always occurs after net zero CO2 emissions.

If you want to know more about what I think is going on, research Orchestrated Objective Reduction, developed by Penrose and anaesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff.

It is the most testable and therefore the most scientific theory of consciousness. It has made 14 predictions, which is 14 more than any other theory. Six of these predictions have been verified, and none falsified.

Anything else would just be me rehashing the argument of the people who actually came up with the theory, and I’m not interested in doing that.

mercury IS what the universe is made of....

relax guys, Biden said himself that he would “cure cancer”

If it works and they pass the trials then more power to them. The paper I saw about it was from last year so it shouldn't be surprising that it did not take off yet and should also be a proof that if it took so much longer to develop than immunotherapy then it was indeed harder to get it to work.

[removed]

Just a heads up - a well supported, radical breakthrough in cancer biology is very likely going to be published in one of two journals, either Nature or Science. If the scientists performing the work think they have a rigorous, world changing paper, they'll aim to publish in one of these two. Check the link to the original paper when reading these summaries.

It's usually expressed in the more elegant "garbage in, garbage out"

Garbage in garbage out

Stick rockets behind asteroids, shove em out to location

>ya you break down mercury for component.

So you need to launch a space ship, that can land on mercury, then mine it, then launch that back into space. Then process that into building materials and construct that where?

None of the tech to do that exists.

> functional fusion

Fusion electricity is a pipe dream itself, but that is far far far closer to reality, and 50/50 that winds up working at some point.

And how do you stop the virus from infecting healthy cells and causing more harm than good?