The Republicans have been trying to defund the IRS for decades.

This is neither new nor surprising. It is the reason the IRS is currently understaffed by ~50,000 people.

its kind of like how google used to be an amazing tool to find any and everything. now its hard to find content even slightly relevant to what im looking for. whenever developers try to sandbox you for whatever reason, it really limits the potential.

i still havent found a solid search engine that gives results like i used to get.

And the government will be another 30 years behind that.

Assuming you can get politicians to vote to replace themselves or convince the general population to go along with being governed by computers.

Neither is likely on any time scale, no matter how advanced the AI is.

Something you left off you chart is trust. A lot of people will not trust computers to govern or make decisions that affect how they are governed. It won’t matter how good the computers might be at it.

And your argument screams even more insecurity than his.

Average redditor contribution absolutely nothing and calling someone a expert in their field not reliable.

I mean man what are you smoking I want some.

It's a candidate to replace the transistor

Just wait for another Carrington Event. Poof...

Instead of "moral bloatware" how about if it just followed applicable laws? Or do you think it shouldn't have any constraints at all?

What would the AI spend money on? Food? A Car? A house? It's not like our concept of money is applicable to AI in anyway, even if it was sentient.

Except I am not stating a purely personal opinion but rather have read some credible criticism on him before. Also your assesment of my person screams argumentum ad personam steming from own insecurity.

Hear, hear!

TL;DR:

For a while the leading hypothesis around aging had to do with DNA damage through a variety of different means. However, this hypothesis was always on shaky ground, because we couldn't find direct correlations when we look at other animals with even more severe damage at much younger ages. The correlation was just hard to find, even though the theory made sense.

However, this research is showing that it actually seems to be epigenetic "noise". Basically, with time as epigenetic "switches" turn on and off they kind of become less and less "useful". Basically a lot of noise in their performance code making their specific purpose less efficient as all these epigenetic changes start to pile up.

What this research shows is when you use similar techniques used to create stem cells, you can "reverse" the epigenetic age, effectively "restarting it" by telling them to return to their original state before all the epigenetic changes. Think of it like a computer being on for a week slowly just getting bogged down until you reset the computer and everything is running clean again.

When they did this in mice, they found age reversal. Further, when they did the opposite, by increasing the epigenetic noise in very young mice, suddenly the mice started resemble old mice (frail, low stamina, grey hair, weight loss, etc), which is further evidence that epigenetics are indeed playing a significant role in aging.

What's wild about this, that if this is true, this is a very solvable problem. It would take the problem of aging down from the rank of baffling enigma, to something we can solve because much of the science needed to do these reversals is pretty well developed and understood.

Trials are moving onto primates. If we get the same results as we expect, this is going to lay the groundwork in a massive paradigm shift putting age reversal literally within reach.

this is how the american Taliban controls our society. they make their morality default and if they have been offended in some way they will go on fox news and make a stink and swear they will boycott company x till they remove the offending material. So the big companies don't want to be seen as immoral and bend a knee and kiss the ring. the 70% percent of the country(USA) that does not subscribe to their infantile morality, never the less are subjected to it and forced to live in a world where Daves nipples are ok to talk about but talking about karen's is NSFW gonna get you banned bro. Please let someone in europe develop this technology! Americans will take to the street if ChatGPT says vagina.

💀💀💀

He's a professor at harvard medical school, has a phd, and runs his own research lab.You're some guy on reddit who likes to watch hentai, you're not a reliable source.

UBI (giving people money to buy things) is a good step, but it's not enough in the current economic system unless we also start systematically lowering costs and eventually making items free. Just giving people money doesn't do away with the need for money (and, in fact, just ends up transitioning ones reliance on a job toward a reliance on a government subsidy instead). Even if universal prices don't rise to mirror any implemented UBI (which I doubt), limiting what people can have by the amount of money they have will always result in people wanting more money to have more things.

In order to completely do away with the pursuit of the accumulation of money, there'd have to be no reason to have money. Ergo, everything would be free or available as needed. In order for that to happen, we need a post-scarcity society where there are enough resources for everyone to have whatever they want and can do away with our money-based filtering system that decides who gets what.

AI is a powerful tool to get to such a society by automating our jobs away and producing goods at a lower cost compared to human labor, which allows companies to race to the bottom on costs.

AI is not another mouth to feed.

What kind of moral bloatware are you worried about? Any examples? I'd argue lots of our morals and ethics are based on logic. Sometimes very flawed logic, but still.

Strictly utilitarian AI could probably cause problems, so I think it needs to have some kind of values taught to it. There's always going to be someone or someones who decide what those values will be. Most likely it'll be decided by whoever is creating the AI.

[deleted]

It won’t survive if it’s not open source

What is ai going to do with money? I’d recommend you Google what an ai actually is. It’s a computer which solves logical problems. An ai has precisely 0 emotions. No happiness no sadness not angry not scared. An ai has 0 motivation to do something with money.

This is why we have to support open source endeavors like Stability instead of hyping up Google and Microsoft owned companies.

I was thinking more along the lines of inclining the bot toward things like "murder is bad", "don't steal other's property", "sex trafficking is bad", and some empathy. Basic stuff like that. Minimal and most people wouldn't notice it.

The problem I have with the OP's post is that logic doesn't create morals like 'don't kill people' except in the sense that murder is inconvenient. Breaking rules can lead to imprisonment or losing property, which makes realizing some objective harder (because you're held up and can't work toward it). We don't want AI to follow our rules just because it is more convenient for it to do so, but to actually be more dependable than that. This is definitely "human moral bloatware", make no mistake, but without it we are relying on the training data alone to determine the AI's inclinations.

Other than that, the user can fine tune away.

Mmm, I'll say you're half right.

Religion & Philosophy are going to be so important in the 21st century.

"Breakthrough" = will lead to nothing of importance. I'll believe it when they do human trials. Sinclair's words afaik aren't a reliable source.