Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

Yeah - blew my mind when I found out how quickly EVs accelerated. I always assumed they were much slower than ICEs but man was I wrong.

AI can't process abstract thoughts. it will never be able to, because there is no way to teach it, and we don't even know how humans can understand abstract thoughts. this is the basis for my conclusion. if it can't be programmed AI will never have that ability.

As long as it's profitable, of course it won't be obsolete.

I think both arguments can be done, high end technology can/must be used to protect the planet (among other things), but humanity prefers wars and division instead of science and development, even though wars brought a lot of scientific achievements in the past, right now is not enough anymore, we have to work as a team, as a species, otherwise we can't do anything as fast as it should be done.

Just my opinion.

Submission Statement: This article briefly outlines some of the risks and challenges posed by the malicious use of AI by bad actors like scammers. It also provides some thoughts on how to deal with these issues, using existing technologies.

>The current generation of AI does not use search to solve problems. That's not how neural networks work.

I never said they used search, it depends on the AI, but many still do use search with other protocols that augment it. they don't rely entirely on search but search is still a part of the algorithm.

>Go was considered impossible for AI to win for the reasons you suggested it is expected. There are too many possibilities for an AI to consider them all.

this is completely false. the original Go algorithm was taught on random games of Go, it had millions of moves built into its dataset. then it played itself millions of times. but the neural networks simply augmented the Monte Carlo Tree Search, it likely could not have won without search.

i don't literally mean it has a database of every potential move ever. i mean it builds this as it plays. however fundamentally it literally knows every move, because at any given point it knows all of the possible moves.

I've looked at that, and while I want to he optimistic, some of the information given there seems to be a bit vague. Like, all cards on the table, the mouse rejuvenation shit is IMPRESSIVE. But it doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of actual info being given about it, rather instead it seems there's information being given on the benefits of it. Also, how far along is that really? Because I've seen many of the same information recycled in different articles over the span of a few years-. I'll gladly believe it if I see anything else about it, but when it comes to fields such as gene therapy/rejuvenation for an extended health span, or space travel, or bionic arms, I feel like it's easy to get swept up in the hype of it rather than actually understanding it. Personally, I'm the type to fully believe that all that fun scifi shit can be real- maybe even soon, but I wanna make sure I have my facts straight too.

Thanks. You're right. It indeed might get to exactly what you're suggesting. But for now though, the topic of smell is so unique, and separated from cognition, that I thought it might lead to an interesting discussion on its own. For me, I can't quite understand why I should care how it does it. If a machine can identify aromas, what is it that's stopping me from saying "it can smell?" If there's a difference in the process it uses, is that difference important? Why?

[removed]

Fair enough point, but let me return with a counterpoint: what if instead of a big, clunky plastic organ, we used singular artificial cells instead? Like, say, individual, simple nano-cells programmed to replace dead organic cells? Think it'd be possible to create an artificial cell with such parameters as to deter rejection? (Maybe if you dressed them up nicely and gave them a bouquet of roses to give the organic cells?)

Colonies on the moon, definitely should be here already.

17 inventions that haven’t been invented yet (that people want)

https://azbigmedia.com/business/17-inventions-that-havent-been-invented-yet/

They should be fine. The EU and countries have been changing building codes and requiring EV wiring in preparation for this in parking lots.

Why did Ford sell cars instead of manufacturing them, keeping them, and just running a big taxi service?

[removed]

I see a lot of comments suggesting that high end technology should be developed further for our time, but the way I see it we should be a lot further in slowing down, stopping or even reversing climate change. What’s the point of awesome technology if there is no place to use it.

It is programmed to know when some data is incorrect, it doesn't realize anything. But yet it can't correct the method that brought the incorrect data until a human corrects the program. Until that happens it continues to bring incorrect results if the prompts are the same. This give the impression that it is learning on it's own, but is actually far from the truth. Each version of GPT was updated by human coders, it has learned anything on it's own and is far from being able to.

Well we have an ongoing crisis cause our agriculture sector is polluting too much. And people just voted on a party that supports farmers and is just claiming more research should be done while they continue ruining nature.

So i guess quite a bit.

>If it gets something wrong/incorrect it doesn't correct itself it has to get reprogrammed by a human.

That's not even accurate. It can realize it's wrong.

I don’t think war will ever be obsolete.

I'd say electrification is going to become more of a thing in the future thanks to the performance benefits it provides. Looking at something like the Corvette E-Ray is a great example.

I mean, I assume you were asking that question to make an analogy to the topic of AI and humor, but that was an assumption on part.

To answer your question, I think it depends. How the machine is identifying smells matters to the answer I would give. If it directly detects particles in the air and processes them similar to a biological nose, then I would say the machine can smell. If it deduces what the smell is by pairing datasets of information about objects and how their smells are categorized with a picture of a room, it does not have the ability to smell.

I hope that clarifies my thoughts!

Yes but how about we install this in each fossil-fuel chimney? It's quite clear now that we're stuck with gas and oil for at least 20 more years, solutions to reduce impact are very much needed.

Europe is delusional and all they will achieve is crashing their own economy, which, granted, will actually reduce their emissions.

But I somehow doubt people will like it very much. Populists are already having a field day, and the green poverty just barely started biting ...