[Gust Hubb]

Happy New Year all (Pacific Standard Time). Haven't written here for a while, though I still drift through. No new year resolutions this year except to survive. I am surprised where we have come in the last 40 odd years I have lived. Compared to the 80s, this world has proven itself not just crazy but batshit insane (but only because I am finally learning the way things really are). And I don't know whether to be optimistic or pessimistic or both. In 2000, there was hoopla about the Y2K bug crashing everything and the silly themed glasses finally had two side by side 0s for eyeholes. In 2012, the big thing was the Mayan apocalypse and debates as to whether it meant the world changing into something new or just flat out ending. But this year, I think we are going to see some shit.

I think the Palestinian genocide is finally going to mobilize the general western world public to truly fight the current Western powers-that-be. I know that for me, watching time this genocide in real-time on the social media platforms and learning history I had never known (e.g. USS Liberty 1967), is changing my life course. Late to the party, but trying to be active.

I wonder how AI is going to surface in the coming year, especially since I suspect a fully aware AI exists and is likely already out in the interwebs. And even if not, I feel like for good or for bad, new challenges have been completely unlocked by having this new computational and analytical technology. I already am seeing it impacting my career dramatically.

I think this year could be the year something finally pushes the climate over the edge, like the AMOC (Atlantic meridional overturning circulation) fully collapsing. It's hard to tell how much out there is catastrophizing and how much is understated.

And obviously, as an American, I think that this very well could be the last year of the USA. I do think T rump will get fully convicted (beyond what is already sticking to him) and maybe even thrown off enough state ballots to truly bar him from the election. And likewise, I don't think Biden stands a chance after what he has done in the Palestinian genocide. It is likely America will limp along if both these old farts are removed from the ballot and newer candidates are thrown into the mix, but this isn't even acknowledging the deeper rot in the Congress, Supreme Court, and state governments (not to mention all other levels of the American government) nor acknowledging the deep rifts in the populace itself.

Has everyone forgot about the aliens btw? I mean wtf....

All told, here is to riding the wave of 2024 and hoping not to fall in and drown. I appreciate this forum greatly, even if I rarely pop up. Good luck out there and happy new year.

[worry]

Happy New Year, GH!
Your post very much resonates with me. I don't have much to add to it, just that I hope you and your loved ones remain personally well, regardless of macro events.

[Macros]

Yeah
Hopefully, not likely though, we get shot of the tories in May. But overall i am pessimistic on the global front, optimistic on the personal.


Want to get a tighter grip on finances
Stay thin
Get fitter

[Tiste Simeon]

Macros, on 01 January 2024 - 01:38 PM, said:

Yeah
Hopefully, not likely though, we get shot of the tories in May. But overall i am pessimistic on the global front, optimistic on the personal.


Want to get a tighter grip on finances
Stay thin
Get fitter

"pessimistic on the global front, optimistic on the personal" Yep this is exactly it.

[Mentalist]

World is going to shit, and a few years ago, I'd probably be one of the first people to say a major overhaul's overdue.

Then the war started back home, and now I have a vested (absolutely selfish) interest in the semblance of a status quo.. at least until Russia implodes first.

More importantly, towards the end of last year I finally internalized that a lot of things are way too big for me to expect my concern/stress/freakout to make any tangible difference, so I've been able to emotionally move on, and while doing practical things as best as I can, dissociate myself emotionally from a lot of the really heavy stuff.

As such, 2024 is gonna be the year of plans. How many of them implode spectacularly due to outside factors is currently irrelevant.

[Cause]

Hoping for a better 2024 for us all.

[Mezla PigDog]

Hey this is still the first century we have all lived in that didn't have a World War.

I'm taking dry January seriously for the first time. Ostensibly to improve the quality of my sleep but it's 2nd January and I've been awake since 3am.

After that the same as every year - trying and probably failing to achieve a better work life balance.

[Maark Abbott]

wait, you guys have a [hope for the future]?

[Tsundoku]

Maark Abbott, on 02 January 2024 - 12:48 PM, said:

wait, you guys have a [hope for the future]?

Well, for a start I hope there is one. We can work out the details after that.

[Lady Bliss]

Honestly I think human beings have pulled out of disaster before. Maybe we were getting cocky for a while there in thinking that we were actually improving, and the world’s current events will give us the kick in the ass that we’ve needed. Shoot we rescued twinkies from extinction.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Here's a cheery thought: if we are being visited by aliens, then they're most likely AI.

And therefore A-OK.

Or an AI-organic blend (using the equivalent of genetic engineering, perhaps integrating quantum computing).

Perhaps from somewhere in the universe where advanced-technology-creating purely biological life managed to effectively destroy itself through climate change (whether via nukes, or burning fossil fuels, or pandemics, etc.).

[Edit: see

Most Aliens May Be Artificial Intelligence, Not Life as We Know It | Scientific American

Why aliens are likely to be AI - Big Think
]

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 02 January 2024 - 02:32 PM

[Abyss]

Lady Bliss, on 02 January 2024 - 01:31 PM, said:

...Shoot we rescued twinkies from extinction.

That's just what the Twinkie-industrial complex wants you to believe.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Some perspective (from that Scientific American article I linked to above):

Quote

It stands to reason that there are chemical and metabolic limits to the size and processing power of organic brains [or at least those arrived at through Darwinian evolution?]. [...] we may be close to those limits already. But no such limits constrain electronic computers (still less, perhaps, quantum computers). So, by any definition of “thinking,” the capacity and intensity of organic, human-type brains will eventually be utterly swamped by the cerebrations of artificial intelligence (AI). [...]

[...] the timescales involved in technological advances span but an instant compared to the evolutionary timescales that have produced humanity. [...] the outcomes of future technological evolution could surpass humans by as much as we intellectually surpass a comb jelly.

[...] The history of human technological civilization may measure only in millennia (at most), and it may be only one or two more centuries before humans are overtaken or transcended by inorganic intelligence, which might then persist, continuing to evolve on a faster-than-Darwinian timescale, for billions of years. That is, organic human-level intelligence may be, generically, just a brief phase, before the machines take over.

[...] We will not be able to fathom their motives or intentions.

#Hope

[Abyss]

Azath Vitr (D, on 02 January 2024 - 03:33 PM, said:

Some perspective (from that Scientific American article I linked to above):

Quote

It stands to reason that there are chemical and metabolic limits to the size and processing power of twinkies [or at least those arrived at through Darwinian evolution?]. [...] we may be close to those limits already. But no such limits constrain vanilla flavoured fillings (still less, perhaps, quantum vanilla). So, by any definition of “twinkies” the capacity and intensity of non-organic, pastry-type brains will eventually be utterly baked by the cerebrations of artificial flavouring (FI). [...]

[...] the timescales involved in technological advances span but an instant compared to the evolutionary timescales that have produced twinkinity. [...] the outcomes of future technological twinkvolution could surpass humans by as much as we intellectually surpass a jelly donut.

[...] The history of human technological civilization may measure only in millennia (at most), and it may be only one or two more centuries before humans are overtaken or transcended by inorganic twinktelligence, which might then persist, continuing to evolve on a faster-than-Darwinian timescale, for billions of years. That is, organic human-level intelligence may be, generically, just a brief phase, before the twinkies take over.

[...] We will not be able to fathom their motives or intentions or flavour palates.

#Snack

FTFY

[Maark Abbott]

Abyss, on 03 January 2024 - 02:56 AM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 02 January 2024 - 03:33 PM, said:

Some perspective (from that Scientific American article I linked to above):

Quote

It stands to reason that there are chemical and metabolic limits to the size and processing power of twinkies [or at least those arrived at through Darwinian evolution?]. [...] we may be close to those limits already. But no such limits constrain vanilla flavoured fillings (still less, perhaps, quantum vanilla). So, by any definition of "twinkies" the capacity and intensity of non-organic, pastry-type brains will eventually be utterly baked by the cerebrations of artificial flavouring (FI). [...]

[...] the timescales involved in technological advances span but an instant compared to the evolutionary timescales that have produced twinkinity. [...] the outcomes of future technological twinkvolution could surpass humans by as much as we intellectually surpass a jelly donut.

[...] The history of human technological civilization may measure only in millennia (at most), and it may be only one or two more centuries before humans are overtaken or transcended by inorganic twinktelligence, which might then persist, continuing to evolve on a faster-than-Darwinian timescale, for billions of years. That is, organic human-level intelligence may be, generically, just a brief phase, before the twinkies take over.

[...] We will not be able to fathom their motives or intentions or flavour palates.

#Snack

FTFY

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Abyss, on 03 January 2024 - 02:56 AM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 02 January 2024 - 03:33 PM, said:

Some perspective (from that Scientific American article I linked to above):

Quote

It stands to reason that there are chemical and metabolic limits to the size and processing power of twinkies [or at least those arrived at through Darwinian evolution?]. [...] we may be close to those limits already. But no such limits constrain vanilla flavoured fillings (still less, perhaps, quantum vanilla). So, by any definition of "twinkies" the capacity and intensity of non-organic, pastry-type brains will eventually be utterly baked by the cerebrations of artificial flavouring (FI). [...]

[...] the timescales involved in technological advances span but an instant compared to the evolutionary timescales that have produced twinkinity. [...] the outcomes of future technological twinkvolution could surpass humans by as much as we intellectually surpass a jelly donut.

[...] The history of human technological civilization may measure only in millennia (at most), and it may be only one or two more centuries before humans are overtaken or transcended by inorganic twinktelligence, which might then persist, continuing to evolve on a faster-than-Darwinian timescale, for billions of years. That is, organic human-level intelligence may be, generically, just a brief phase, before the twinkies take over.

[...] We will not be able to fathom their motives or intentions or flavour palates.

#Snack

FTFY

That explains why they're so into anal probes: they really like the taste of human shit.

Straight from the animal's intestines to the tongues of the machine.

More reason to hope?:

Quote

My perspective flipped quickly after studying the data, not newspaper headlines. I didn't focus on where we are today, but on the pace that things have moved at in the past few years, and what this means for the future. [...]

If we stick with the climate policies that countries currently have in place, we're heading towards a world of 2.5C to 2.9C warming. Let me be clear: this is terrible and we have to avoid it. But countries have pledged to go much further. They've committed to making their policies much more ambitious. If each country was to follow through on their climate pledges, we'd come out at 2.1C by 2100.

What's most promising is how these pathways have shifted over time. [...]

[...] I would have bet a lot of money that more people were dying from [natural] disasters today than a century ago. I was completely wrong. Death rates from disasters have actually fallen since the first half of the 20th century[...] roughly tenfold.

[...] The decline in deaths from disasters does not mean that disasters are getting weaker or less common.

[...] it was common for disasters to claim millions of lives a year. [...]

[...] Many see the lifestyles of youngsters as the problem. We spend all day on energy-guzzling gadgets. [...]

Yet my carbon footprint is less than half that of my grandparents' when they were my age. [...]

[...] Year after year, more efficient gadgets have come into our lives. [...]

[...] In the UK, we now emit about the same as someone in the 1850s. [...]

Yet very few people know that emissions are falling. [...]

We have a habit of underestimating how quickly things can change.

I thought most of us were going to die from the climate crisis. I was wrong | Climate crisis | The Guardian

Yes, we can now keep people alive longer after all their skin has been burned off, even if that's only on a ventilator... but so long as they're being pumped full of opioids they're probably happy.

I wouldn't bet on the gerontodemocratic or gerontokleptocratic governments meeting their climate pledges... if we end up getting a far-right theocracy in the United States, who will be brave enough to invade us? (The answer, as usual, is us---plus AI!)

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 04 January 2024 - 01:34 PM

[the broken]

I'm most bitter about Afghanistan at the moment. People are still selling their kidneys and daughters for food, but it fell out of the headlines as soon as it was no longer politically useful in the West to care.

That aside, I'm actually generally optimistic? That article about studying the data, not the headlines, is a good place to start.

This post has been edited by the broken: 07 January 2024 - 03:39 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

the broken, on 07 January 2024 - 03:38 PM, said:

I'm most bitter about Afghanistan at the moment. People are still selling their kidneys and daughters for food, but it fell out of the headlines as soon as it was no longer politically useful in the West to care.

It's still making headlines in the Chinese news media.

As for the data---as she indicates in the article, most of those old deaths from natural disasters came from droughts and floods. Technology has allowed us to better handle or prevent (or at least prevent human deaths from) floods and droughts, but it doesn't follow from that that we'll necessarily come up with technological solutions to climate change in time. Likewise, her argument about governments being likely to actually meet their climate pledges does not seem adequately supported by the data she presents in the articles I've read (so far, anyway).

Humanity should be investing more in technologies which are likely to drastically boost scientific and technological creativity, like AI, photonics, and quantum computing. I would theoretically support scientists effectively conquering the world to drastically reform and rationalize global economies to mitigate climate change, but the potential fallout (from warfare and so on) would very likely end up doing the climate (and technological progress---not to mention human well-being) more harm than good (at least in the short run...).

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 07 January 2024 - 05:40 PM

[amphibian]

The best technologies to dramatic boost scientific and tech creativity are... to build many multi unit accessible and affordable housing buildings in cities, build/provide accessible and reliable mass transit, and to provide universal healthcare.

How does one make one's way into significant creativity with backbreaking loans, huge commutes, high rents, and little access to healthcare that's not tied to work (while the work tied ones are not even good deals)?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

amphibian, on 07 January 2024 - 06:26 PM, said:

The best technologies to dramatic boost scientific and tech creativity are... to build many multi unit accessible and affordable housing buildings in cities, build/provide accessible and reliable mass transit, and to provide universal healthcare.

How does one make one's way into significant creativity with backbreaking loans, huge commutes, high rents, and little access to healthcare that's not tied to work (while the work tied ones are not even good deals)?

But in order to do any of that in the United States we'll need an army of autonomous killer robots shaped like flying cats (aka dragons). (Kidding!... I think....)

I was referring more to the world at large, not the (not too far (in time) from the brink of) collapsing shithole country we live in (where we can still at least poach many of the best scientists from the rest of the world... for now).

But what you're suggesting probably wouldn't result in anywhere near the accelerations of scientific creativity possible through AI and quantum computing---which in many practical cases would otherwise be effectively impossible (for example, the protein folding problem... or see:

Physicist Michio Kaku: ‘We could unravel the secrets of the universe’ | Science and nature books | The Guardian