It would be 'enough' eventually, for those who happen to fortunate to be alive when these treatments come to fruition, but who knows how long that will be.

Human research, at least in the medical rejuvenation branch, is glacial slow. Especially with mice experiments as the vast majority do not translate into anything practical for humans.

For those who are currently alive today and would like to benefit, would definitely want this research kicked into high gear and AI would do just that.

For example, the covid vaccine? AI helped develop that in 3 days I believe, the reason it took 8 months to get it out into people's arms was because the vaccine had to go through the FDA's extremely slow vetting process for safety, but the actual development time was extremely quick thanks to AI.

Normally vaccines take years to develop, true the fact that it was a world wide pandemic expedited a lot of the processes, but the point still stands, when AI comes into the equation research time drops fast.

Live life

Is there a reason incremental progress by human researchers wouldn’t be enough?

This is a common misconception about slavery and why a revolution was unnecessary to end it. It was more feasible and profitable to pay them.

This raises a good point, which I hadn’t considered. Maybe what is actually so mind-blowing and disruptive about GPT-n is just that it isn’t trying to sell them anything.

If we don't have a robust safery system that works acroos the companies and across the states by that time, I don't see how we will survive that.

We can't make predictions yet. In the near future, maybe, it could change. However, with longevity, we don't even have the map yet

I don't have much hope. Our current leadership is still having a hard time getting past the idea that the internet is a series of tubes.

Maybe specialize in hooking up robots to electricity.

I tried it... with me it looks like I'm staring above the camera, and it turns out constantly staring at the same point is pretty creepy. Normal people look away sometimes, let their eyes wander, and when there's a group discussion they mostly look at the speaker, not at YOU all the time. When you move your head or eyes far enough the effect stops, and the resumes when it makes out your eyes again - which can look unnatural. And if you wink or slowly slide something in front of one eye it looks really freaky (you can see a bit of that in the video).

I wouldn't use it in any serious context. It's only for spooking my friends and family.

I dought you view the clothes that you ware is a slave to you. If you define a slave is anything that can not give consent that you can apply that to alot of things.

Agreed, except for the 'very bad thing' part in your first sentence. If we truly believe that AI really is going to become 'more intelligent' than us, then we have no reason to fear its 'values' being 'imposed'.

The hypothetical AI will have much more 'sensible' and 'reasonable' values than any human would; that's what true, decision-generating intelligence is all about. If it is 'more intelligent than humans', then it will easily be able to understand us better than ourselves.

In the same way that humans know more about dog psychology than dogs do, AI will be more 'humanitarian' than humans themseves. Why should we worry about it 'not understanding' why things like cannbalism and slavery have been encoded into our cultures as overwhelmingly 'bad things'?

How could any properly-intelligent AI not understand these things? That's the less rational, defensible proposition, the way I interpret the problem.

The jobs of the future is that you will rent your body out to robots by putting in a pair of airpods and doing exactly what you are told

1. Try to get a physical job.
2. Probably fail because those jobs are very oversaturated and there are many applicants, and some physical jobs are being automated as well.
3. Live off thrown away food in dumpsters, and food donations to the poor, hopefully. Move/walk to the closest highly populated city. Use public computers in libraries to try to start protests for UBI there.

Competition is great, but we all know Google will hype it up for 1 year and then silently cancel it or throw it on the back burner and effectively cancel it through neglect.

This ^^

Google has YEARS Of modeling data that drwarf openai's

People just aren't aware since they haven't seen it or used it

Now Google has pressure to use more ai in their search results but have to dance the line of good enough results that have ads this more revenue for Google

Vs really good search results which would limit their revenue

But it’s gangsta I advocate it.

They can compete. They have the technology. Question is, can they do so without destroying their revenue?

Im working on being a coach for higher consciousness

Yes, it depends on the timescale of the system.

> You’re right. AI will in effect be free labor.

Not possible unless the cost of compute and power is also free. It will be an enormous force multiplier.

> The question isn’t “what will we do”. The question should instead be how does our leaders and government respond and adapt to this new reality.

Exactly, and they were clearly WAY in over their heads even before AI showed up on the scene. The next decade is going to make COVID look like a cakewalk is my prediction.

I can't imagine the scenario of everyone being penniless. If productivity increases then GDP will increase too!

There should be enough taxes to provide a safety net and reeducation to those displaced.

Of course no one likes being forced to change job or to depend on the government.

The labor market always evolves, jobs are lost and created, it's just playing in hyper speed because of this new incoming labor force.

Black smith /woodworking /metal fabrication

I have a lot of hobbies that have real world value (especially in a post apocalyptic type of world).

IT is just my day job

> there is no positive difference left to make.

I think this is the core of where your problem lies, in holding the belief that the key to a meaningful, fulfilling existence is by contributing to works. And by making a "difference".

We make our own meaning, most of us find meaning in our lives while doing tasks that millions of other people could do just as well, or by finding personal fulfillment in hobbies or passions that don't provide a practical benefit to anyone other than a personal sense of joy and self-expression.

There isn't any amount of skill an AI could hold that could take that away from us. Would AI farmers take away the joy of cultivating my own garden? Or of in painting the perfect image of a sunset just as it feels in my own mind? Do I feel less fulfilled having climbed a mountain when a helicopter could get there in a fraction of the time? Could an AI prevent me from finding fulfillment in time spent with friends and family? Did potters give up their passion when manufacturing started producing high quality pots and bowls by the millions? Did piano players stop learning when you could program realistic sounds in MIDI? We could go on of course...

Our ability to find fulfillment in our lives isn't tied to any intrinsic need to complete practical tasks that only we can do. It comes entirely from within and each other and is something that is discovered by living in a way that fulfills our sense of self.

Trust me when I say that that isn't going anywhere.

In a world where AI replaced almost all practical tasks, there would certainly be individuals who feel crestfallen when the career or passion they pursued is no longer needed in the practical sense. But that drive was developed by living in a world where people were still needed to do those things, not because it was the only path to a fulfilling existence.