dimreepr

Imagine you were given 3 wishes, everything within the laws of physics are possible, the wishes have to be specific (you can't just wish for everyone to be happy or rich or etc.). How could we specify the first two wishes, so we don't have to spend the third cancelling the first two? It's not as straightforward as it might appear, if looked at scientifically.

An English man an Irish man and a Scottish man, walk into a bar, and the barman says "is this some sort of joke?"

Good for you, I love dog's. But I have to check, does that put you in the Mistermack camp? Who thinks the problem would be solved if we artificially reduce the odds, by artificially reducing the number of human's? Because I also love, some, humans...

Indeed, in an ideal world this wouldn't even be a question (with proof of concept). And we're back to what we can do, what is affordable to us; I use my wealth, which is essentially a computer and internet connection, to digitally point the finger at anyone who'll listen and ask "how are you using your wealth to benefit others?" (Greta has a bigger audience) having pointed out that ("no man is an island complete and of itself" - Donne) no man is a self made millionaire, and anyone who claims they are, are worse than children, because their ignorance is willfully embraced.

Yes we do, it's a can kicking exercise; it gives them time to think of a new way to kick the can further down the road; all the while sporting a fixed grin, that be lies their hope that it will become someone else's problem before we reach the cliff... Off the top of my head, site the factory next to a big arsed shit farm and use the waste material; making both the shit farm and your company profitable (without taxing the people), worthy of a sizeable investment, no? OK that's fine, we can't predict the future, you might be right, however long the odds are. That's like a poor man spending every penny he will ever earn, on one national lottery ticket to solve his problem's; some people might say that's a really childish way to solve a problem.

LOL, beat me to it, but there's some lovely filth over here: God damn it, now I've got to watch again, which is a sort of recycling...😇

Every generation throw's at least one baby out with the bathwater in our persuit of... mostly leasure, which tends to be conflated with pleasure rather than boredom, for some reason; when I was a kid clothes washing, including nappy's, was a days work with a twin tub, sometimes that was the best day of the week. And every generation think's it's smarter, because Dad doesn't know what google is... But he could fix the plug that feeds it, which begs the question of what's smarter... Greta's not pointing the fingure at them or us, she's pointing the fingure at "the government" who can afford it. My story wasn't about relative poverty, it's about what is affordable; and for me, turning off the streetlights is the starting point of affordable. IIRC shifting the clock's to suite our working hour's, saved millions of candles...

But it doesn't follow they're not as concerned about climate change, just because their focus is on today's survival, why would that mean their not concerned about tomorrow. I'm very poor, my daily survival is a daily budget, but I'm lucky enough to live in a rich country, so I'm relatively wealthy in global term's; I spend that wealth on my carbon footprint, which is this computer and link, a microwave, the cheapest food I can find within walking distance of my very very secondhand caravan. I think I have an argument that my carbon footprint is smaller than Greta's, so I'm with all the other poor, I've paid enough; you first, switch off all the streetlights and we'll talk about my internet connection.

Maybe they're a lapsed buhdist, they do everything a buhdist does, but without a measurement...😉

I don't think this is true, it seems to me that if your premise is true, it's in terms of identifiable species, as in what we can see/find; most of the planet's potential habitable zone's/place's are unknown to us, and bacteria has been found in place's that was previously considered uninhabitable.

And this is another distraction technique, much like "net zero" which as far as I can tell, it means a way that the corporation's can carry on, in largely the same direction and sell it to the customer's as a solution in itself; and we're back to my coach anolog, hoping it runs out of fuel before we get to the cliff.

So what do you think net zero mean's?

That's a similar argument to the trickle down theory in capitalism and we all know that in the real world, it just doesn't work. First you have to define and agree about what net zero actually means. For instance, if you mean one tree = x no. of tonnes (which is by no means a linear or fully understood equation), then a rich country will just pay poor countries to plant x no. of tree's and continue on its merry way patting itself on the back; that's like pooring the same amount shit into the gutter and making it better by putting stilts on the sidewalk. Indeed if by some more than others, you mean the rich more than the poor. The poor have almost no choice about their emissions, it's only the rich that can afford to choose from the alternatives available.

If you're asking for the safest option, ask again tomorrow...

Na, that's more like the "Italian Job", drop the gold or die, you fooking IDIOT...

That's like driving a coach towards a cliff and hoping it runs out of petrol before we get there...

To what? And don't say the economy, that rabbit hole is very deep indeed. Ask not for whom this bell tolls... It's kinda my signature... 😉

The actual number is largely unimportant, because it represents millions of tonnes of shit we don't want and can't dump, without stinking up the neighbourhood...

I largely agree, especially the last part; but most people are just happy to be left alone, to enjoy what little comfort they can from this "bitter sweet symphony of life". If you can find a way to merge that way of thinking with comfort and good hard work, then by George (Orwell) I think we've cracked it... 🤞

“A horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!” "I'd kill, for a cup of tea"

I'm trying to understand what part you think the sentience, of a machine, has to play in the danger to humanity, of GAI. It's within our power to control AI, by designing its objectives correctly, in the first place; for instance, say we design a machine to find a way to eliminate the acidification of the ocean's, a noble cause designed to save humanity from itself. We set it going, but the machines solution is a chemical reaction that uses all the oxygen in the atmosphere. We scramble to switch it off, before it starts the reaction; so it becomes a race for survival. The solution is, we design the algorithm to ask us for permission to start the solution; yes, it's simplistic. The question we have to ask ourselves is, why do we want a fully autonomous machine? Self repairing concrete is fine because the threat of a sentient fourth bridge, only leads to Scotland...

No, I'm asking a genuine question. Purely anecdotal evidence, but I've never met anyone who actually liked their first taste of alcohol, especially if they overindulged. So the question of a nuanced difference in taste and how that relates to price, seems moot. Elephants who love the sauce, aren't fussy about the source.

This is where self awareness may play a role. How? Sentience isn't going to suddenly make it think like us, for instance, what would that consciousness even look like, what is its motivation to do anything? Another topic I think. What's its motivation? We don't like ants because they pose a threat to our comfort; if they're not stinging us they're pinching our picnics. How would we piss off a GAI enough for it to not want us around?

What's your excuse?

But if it's all I can afford, rather that than vegan cheese, but your journey may vary...