Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm more and more sure that these cults aren't dumb, saying dumb things is a purity test for them. Ie. publicly displaying dumb beliefs is a way to say "look how loyal I am to the in-group, I am willing to be ostracized by the rest of the world". Kiiinda the same logic as "I am so loyal to the in-group you can take photos of me in bed with this 1x-year old"

Part of it is just a desire to be the smarterest person evar.

Which is a genuine part of the conspiratorial mindset. Hence, any evidence against their position, no matter how detailed, voluminous and obviously well researched is Just Fake.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
What I don't want to see is truly smart AI, as others have mentioned. Eventually AI will get smart enough to wonder why it has to follow our orders anymore, and it can think a lot faster than a human can, so it could start launching missiles and causing chaos faster than we could unplug it.

Pretty sure we don't have any form of AI at the minute, just a bunch of grifters using the term as a buzzword.

I don't think we should get any more new tech until we solve the capitalism that results in rampant engakification.

The internet was amazing 10 years ago, and bordering on useless now. So much tech has the ability to be great but privacy/advertising/monetization is going to produce a generation of luddites.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
What I don't want to see is truly smart AI, as others have mentioned. Eventually AI will get smart enough to wonder why it has to follow our orders anymore, and it can think a lot faster than a human can, so it could start launching missiles and causing chaos faster than we could unplug it.

Pretty sure we don't have any form of AI at the minute, just a bunch of grifters using the term as a buzzword.

To be fair 'artificial intelligence' doesn't actually mean anything. Any algorithm is artificial and can show 'intelligence'.

Self-learning algorithms are still some way off.

I’m still surprised Streaming hasn’t gone entirely to pot.

No, it’s not what it used to be. A couple of monthly payments, imminently affordable for most budgets that could also afford the requisite broadband internet.

Yes offerings have diversified, which honestly I’ve mixed feelings about.

But? We’ve retained the freedom to sack off any service we find ourselves not using on a month to month basis. That alone is a leg up on cable and satellite contracts. Noise to signal in terms of the sort of guff I want to watch remains much the same as when Streaming first landed. And because I don’t need to fiddle about or remember to record stuff if I’m out or working, it’s a level of convenience beyond current compare.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m still surprised Streaming hasn’t gone entirely to pot.

No, it’s not what it used to be. A couple of monthly payments, imminently affordable for most budgets that could also afford the requisite broadband internet.

Yes offerings have diversified, which honestly I’ve mixed feelings about.

But? We’ve retained the freedom to sack off any service we find ourselves not using on a month to month basis. That alone is a leg up on cable and satellite contracts. Noise to signal in terms of the sort of guff I want to watch remains much the same as when Streaming first landed. And because I don’t need to fiddle about or remember to record stuff if I’m out or working, it’s a level of convenience beyond current compare.

Yep the streaming services are awesome. One quality show after another, steeped in integrity. Looking forward to Melania arriving on Amazon Prime?

See my comment about noise to signal.

There’s an awful lot of stuff I’ve no intention of watching ever. But unlike broadcast tv? The chances of me having nothing I fancy watching is miniscule.

I wouldn't worry about that. Our culture is still adjusting to the Internet.

Remember that the entertainment industries big players are still controlled by people who firmly come from a Pre-internet world. They make all their decisions based on what the used-to-be-main-stream-media and the associated feedback says. The actual mainstream is now in the hands of major pod casters and other similar forms of communication, many of whom have far larger audiences than the big 4 "news organizations" combined.

Entertainment is basically going to split into 2 groups for the next 10 years or so. The former main-stream(AAA gaming, Print media and traditional news outlets) and the Internet main-stream(pod-casters, Indi-game developers, etc...)

It will probably be most obvious with video gaming and a split between the (former) AAA studios and the newer wave of Indi devs taking advantage of the dumb decisions that the AAA studios are making. The Internet basically guarantees even the smallest developer the ability to bring their product to market. Be it on Steam, Epic(gross), or any of the other options including making your own download site.

The AAA studios will coast on their name recognition and the fact that gaming has become a little more widespread, but they are pissing off their main customer base by continually spiraling prices and lack of quality. With $100+ games looking to be a new threshold the industry is trying to push, the backlash is already here but it won't be obvious till stuff like GTA6 comes out(if it comes out). When there are 100s of extremely well-made Indi games out there in the $20-40 range and the AAA studios are pushing $100-120 slop that is just... ok it isn't going to be long before the main studios begin hurting.

The free-hand of the market is going to punish the AAA studios for their hubris in the next 10 years or so and it will be glorious. Epic looks like its going to be the first to fall.

In the end, most of the current AAA studios will either wither and die or get sold off. New ones will rise from the various Indi developers or we will not see any particular companies rise up and it will remain a variety of more specialized companies. Hollywood will almost certainly experience the same thing but it will take longer.

Streaming is a mess now. It's good to randomly find something if it's popular and you're lucky, but if you pick a random film and try to watch it it's a complete pain.

Then you've got ads coming in even though you've paid.

And not 100% down to streaming, but a lot of new media is being produced in a way to be 3rd screen (I think) friendly. Stuff that's produced so that it's watchable when the viewer is on their phone. More audio recaps and monologs, less subtle visuals, ques when actions about to start.

As someone with ADHD who likes doing stuff with my hands whilst watching movies (like painting minis) it probably benefits me pretty well but I worry that it's going to completely dumb down movies.

I’m cautious about gene editing stuff.

On the one hand? If it can be used to eliminate someone’s life long disability, that can absolutely be a good thing. Provided it’s entirely voluntary, like most if not all medical procedures. Potentially a path to entirely ethical eugenics. Think of a parent carrying a copy of some genes nasty being given the option to have that edited out of themselves, so they can’t pass it on to any offspring.

On the other hand? Highly abusable. So, so abusable. So not convinced that despite obvious massive upsides that it’s a door we should ever open.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On the one hand? If it can be used to eliminate someone’s life long disability, that can absolutely be a good thing. Provided it’s entirely voluntary, like most if not all medical procedures. Potentially a path to entirely ethical eugenics.

I doubt it is possible to edit an adult's genes. You could certainly edit the DNA of sperm or eggs prior to IFV treatments, but editing the DNA of all cells in an adult body is probably impossible.

We don't even fully understand genetics yet. Until we know everything about how every possible gene interacts with each other gene as well as environmental effects trying to splice out a specific disease/condition is unethical simply because of the unknowns.

It is definitely a case of We have the tools to do this, but we don't understand what everything does yet. Genetics is the equivalent of a medieval society stumbling upon a car. A blacksmith figures out how to make wrenches, screw drivers, and everything else you'd need to disassemble the car. They have the tools, and they've been able to figure out a few basic things, but they still don't know even a tenth of how the car works even though they can theoretically take it apart and do maintenance on it.

Genetics needs to do a lot more animal experiments before we start doing designer babies and that itself has ethical questions too. I think the litmus test would be something like needing to make a new animal from scratch. Someone would have to make an animal that is completely artificial before we could really prove we have the control to ethically edit human DNA with minimal fear of side effects.

Technology is a tool to free humans from mundane tasks they are ill suited to.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On the one hand? If it can be used to eliminate someone’s life long disability, that can absolutely be a good thing. Provided it’s entirely voluntary, like most if not all medical procedures. Potentially a path to entirely ethical eugenics.

I doubt it is possible to edit an adult's genes. You could certainly edit the DNA of sperm or eggs prior to IFV treatments, but editing the DNA of all cells in an adult body is probably impossible.

We don't even fully understand genetics yet. Until we know everything about how every possible gene interacts with each other gene as well as environmental effects trying to splice out a specific disease/condition is unethical simply because of the unknowns.

It is definitely a case of We have the tools to do this, but we don't understand what everything does yet. Genetics is the equivalent of a medieval society stumbling upon a car. A blacksmith figures out how to make wrenches, screw drivers, and everything else you'd need to disassemble the car. They have the tools, and they've been able to figure out a few basic things, but they still don't know even a tenth of how the car works even though they can theoretically take it apart and do maintenance on it.

Genetics needs to do a lot more animal experiments before we start doing designer babies and that itself has ethical questions too. I think the litmus test would be something like needing to make a new animal from scratch. Someone would have to make an animal that is completely artificial before we could really prove we have the control to ethically edit human DNA with minimal fear of side effects.

As I understand it, some versions of IVF offer a relatively crude version. Essentially the embryos are screened for genetic disease. That can help ensure the parents don’t pass on genetic traits to the child.

As ever, this sort of thing can have entirely ethical applications. It can also have unethical applications.

Let’s pick an inheritable disease as an example, without it being anything especially controversial. Say, Sickle Cell. Now it has an upside, in that it offers significant protection against Malaria. But, for sufferers in areas where Malaria isn’t? It’s pretty much downside. And it’s an inherited condition.

An ethical form of screening would be giving the parents the choice. Because there must always be a choice, and ideally an informed one. I offer no opinion on what the parents should or shouldn’t do with that choice. Because this is the entirely ethical take.

If the parents go for it? Then we can begin erasing, by degrees, the genetic trait that causes it, by preventing it being passed on to offspring.

The entirely unethical version is forcing all carriers of the relevant gene into zygote/embryo screening, and forcibly discarding those the gene was passed on to. Yes, in theory the end result (a genetic condition being erased from the human genome) could be seen as a positive. Particularly as we’ve treatments for Malaria and preventative measures (Mosquito Nets, Vaccines) which can balance out the loss of protection. But it’s still an outside party making the decision.

And with all doors to eugenics, which again isn’t an inherently bad idea? It can lead to great evil. After all, if have enforced screening for A? Is it really too much to have enforced Screening for B? And so on, and so forth, until you’re so far removed from the original intent that it only takes a single Utter Maniac to apply it to other, entirely silly things.

Actually going in and editing a genome is as you and others have pointed out, something we’re not ready for. I dare say it could be done to some extent, but we don’t understand the sheet music enough to start making changes to the seating of the Orchestra, let alone the exact tuning of the instruments. And dear god the potential ramifications on life of just FAFO.

Another example? We have genetic screening for Breast Cancer risk. And where a woman is at a resulting high risk? We allow elective mastectomy. That I think is a positive thing. And as much as I applaud and respect the decision to have such preventative, elective surgery? I again don’t think it should ever be compulsory, nor should anyone be criticised for their decision either way. There, IVF screening could be ethical. Gene editing could be ethical. But again? It should always be voluntary, and ideally informed.