If you say so. I think it will, but the fewer people you have to share with, the more you get.

No way does Midjourney do faces better than SD. I say this as someone who has used both extensively. I've used SD to fix the faces in some of my MJ images. I will say that SD sometimes does pretty bad at smaller/more distant faces in images, but up close it's amazing. You just have to use a decent model with it. Midjourney does have some strength over SD, though. It's very good at creating attractive images just as a default. You could type in absolute nonsense as a prompt and it would probably spit out something pretty.

Ultimately, the purpose of human intelligence is nothing more than ensuring our genes continue reproducing. It's just an accident that we ended up so much smarter than our survival really required. As soon as we got smart enough to recognize intelligence as a desirable trait, things got out of hand. But all this processing ability that we have is still tied to the job of ensuring our genes continue reproducing. Computers can be free from those design restraints. They can be upgraded much more quickly and easily than biological systems, even with genetic engineering.

The future is technological, not biological. We'll invent AGI soon, and that will be the last thing we ever invent.

I agree that in some forms a silicon based computer is going to be far more efficient, but there are many processes and functions that a human brain can do much better. Yes eventually they will be able to emulate that, however we will also in the future be able to genetically modify and optimize systems like these. You don't believe biological computing, silicon computing, and any other architecture we innovate can't work together in parallel to optimize each system?

I guess it's crazy to think an entity that can create endless amounts of money could become evil.

You're right. Let's just vote harder.

>Surely we would have detected such huge technological structures, communications technologies, etc.,

Exactly, the fact we don't see any of that implies they aren't around yet in our past lightcone( I don't claim in the entire universe, only as far as we can see). And, the idea is that we wouldn't have emerged if the universe was already filled with such life.

The selection effect (anthropic principle) here is that the only point in time where a civilization like ours could emerge is when the universe hasn't yet been filled with transformative life. And we are normal (Copernican principle) in that all young civilizations like us likewise observe an empty universe, since otherwise they wouldn't be there. But the emptiness will go away pretty soon.

You probably meant was that aliens are quiet: Aliens that don't expand won't affect anything and get steamrolled. They may as well not be there. What counts is that at least some do expand as the other commenter pointed out.

There is a whole framework around this to model this called Grabby Aliens. You can read and watch more about that here: https://grabbyaliens.com

Yes as the materials and process were created artificially.

Only for paid users. Why does this not surprise me. Snapchat is aN aPp FoR rIcH pEopLe after all. Screw that company.

ADHD people about to rule this planet.

Spread awareness about Universal Basic Income.

Trust me AI is at least 10-15 years away from automating away work. I use AI algos at my workplace. Economics is usually more theoretical and hard to find work in. Finance is a good career path, a lot of the stuff AI can’t do such has helping with very business specific decision making and querying.

You don't know that, you might think having evolutionary tools will be useful but imagine if a person from 3000 years ago had their evolutionary tools. They wouldn't stand a chance now and would be the same as any other person.

Technology grows exponentially, with AI it won't even be normal exponential it will be double exponential which is a function that is exponential to the exponential function, those processes in nature will very quickly be completely found.

The only way I can see having better chance is researching AIs and making sure to be part of the first group who invent a AI improving AI. but like that might have already happened, you can't really know

That definitely wouldn't be the singularity.

I want us to become an interstellar civilization, however it’s going to be very difficult. The NEAREST star to earth is 4.2 light years away, that means that even if you travelled at light speed aka the FASTEST SPEED POSSIBLE, it would take 4.2 years to get there. Getting to a star 100 light away (which isn’t that far away considering) would take at least 100 years.

It depends on how invasive and reversible Neuralink is. With the way tech grows anything you buy today will be outdated in 5 years.

Not a problem if it’s your smartphone.

An enormous problem if you’ve got a glorified calculator permanently soldered to your brain with no way of upgrading it.

I’m a junior rn and switched from finance to information systems this year cuz of how my outlook on AI changed. What I like about my major is that it’s like 70% economics/business and 30% tech. While I’m not a pure programmer, I sorta act as a translator between the esoteric programming/machine learning jargon and business managers to reach goals. From your situation I’d highly suggest looking into if ur school has a program for somthing like that.

Fuck you smart-ass lol!!!

No idea. I can't even predict what's gonna happen in 2025.

[deleted]

If it’s anything like the Fortnite bot ai, theres nothing to worry about.

Unlike human brains, computers can be made smarter very quickly. Eventually, they'll be so much smarter than human brains that human brains will just be slow, inefficient wastes of energy.

That's a very good point, actually. We don't look at the rich today and say wow, their lives must be so sad an empty because they don't have to work unless they choose to.

I don't know about 'behind'. LLMs are a known technology, and training them is still a huge undertaking.

I can imagine a group coming in and finding a much more efficient training system, and eclipsing OpenAI.

The AI aren't self-improving entirely on their own yet, so the race is still a race.

I would argue it does matter, regulators are always behind on these things. Better to be in one of the last jobs to be automated and avoid the mess of regulators learning how to properly alleviate disruptive pressures. Im sure during the industrial revolution people who adapted more quickly by either a) buying a tractor or b) quickly learning how to do a desk job were better off than those who resisted and still used mule-drawn plows for tilling their fields. Obviously more than just farming was impacted but I digress. (For context prior to the industrial revolution 80% of all people were farmers - today it is less than 1%)

tldr: don’t be the lesson be the end result

Everyone with the means to afford Neuralink (or whatever BCIs are called at that time) turning into a human calculator in 15 years is kind of inevitable, right?