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.

Cure for aging.

Regulations.

 BuFFo wrote:
Cure for aging.

Regulations.

I understand (don't agree but understand) why people are anti- immortality but anti ageing - people actually want to get weaker, degrade in every way and fall apart and/or have your brain, memory etc fail - why would anyone want that.... I simply do not understand

Well, with general advances in medical science, including understanding nutrition and that? We’re already ageing much better.

We have better informed diets (which doesn’t mean we’re therefore eating better of course), smoking and drinking less. All of which can cause premature ageing, and not just skin deep.

With stuff like dementia, we know that keeping the brain active can help avoid non-genetic versions.

Joints can be replaced surgically, and there’s ongoing research to make that ever more efficient.

I guess the grail there would be “can we figure out how to clone/3d print a new heart/liver/kidney/ling etc using the patient’s own cells”. Because if we can? The chance of rejection goes down, and you don’t need to hope a donor turns up. That alone can keep you around longer.

I know there was pop-sci excitement over stem cell research a few years back, which could be part of bringing such to reality.

But I for one don’t necessarily fear aging. Sure, now middle age is hitting I miss how resilient and adaptable I was in my younger years. But getting a bit physically knackered is just part of life.

And where would we draw the line there? Because see the maniacs in control right now, including “more money than you can spend across many, many lifetimes” billionaires? You know they’d use it as a path to near immortality. And so the stagnation of human society kicks in, and potentially a horrific two tier one of disposable drones, and long lived masters.

Let’s….lets not go anywhere bloody near that, yeah?

 Mr Morden wrote:

 BuFFo wrote:
Cure for aging.

Regulations.

I understand (don't agree but understand) why people are anti- immortality but anti ageing - people actually want to get weaker, degrade in every way and fall apart and/or have your brain, memory etc fail - why would anyone want that.... I simply do not understand

I think its extremely difficult to decouple the two. At least to me it seems like the people who are most excited and pushing for anti-aging products or development are also weird immortality fetishists. Specific products aren't really the issue, its the people who are trying to combine all of them together. Too many snake oil salesmen and weirdos in the mix.

Cure for death, not aging per se.

Grey goo.

I prefer the more optimistic view that longer lives with less tragedy may well lead to post scarcity. Even if it is driven by personal greed to begin with, ultimately the billionaires will want everything in the universe, which will lead to technological and scientific advancement.

The Federation and the Culture are definitely utopias worth striving for. We might just eed to push through Snow Crash to get there

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, with general advances in medical science, including understanding nutrition and that? We’re already ageing much better.

We have better informed diets (which doesn’t mean we’re therefore eating better of course), smoking and drinking less. All of which can cause premature ageing, and not just skin deep.

With stuff like dementia, we know that keeping the brain active can help avoid non-genetic versions.

Joints can be replaced surgically, and there’s ongoing research to make that ever more efficient.

I guess the grail there would be “can we figure out how to clone/3d print a new heart/liver/kidney/ling etc using the patient’s own cells”. Because if we can? The chance of rejection goes down, and you don’t need to hope a donor turns up. That alone can keep you around longer.

I know there was pop-sci excitement over stem cell research a few years back, which could be part of bringing such to reality.

But I for one don’t necessarily fear aging. Sure, now middle age is hitting I miss how resilient and adaptable I was in my younger years. But getting a bit physically knackered is just part of life.

And where would we draw the line there? Because see the maniacs in control right now, including “more money than you can spend across many, many lifetimes” billionaires? You know they’d use it as a path to near immortality. And so the stagnation of human society kicks in, and potentially a horrific two tier one of disposable drones, and long lived masters.

Let’s….lets not go anywhere bloody near that, yeah?

I am older so its closer to me - wait till it really kicks in and your body and mind start to fail....

I work with a lot of people who are older and its sad to see them degrade, become increasingly fragile - loose the most basic abilities, even loose their individuality - ageing is a horrific disease as bad as cancer (to which I recently lost a parent)

As Flinty says - lets hope for a Culture future rather than Dredd or Cyberpunk.

Sadly I’ve seen that in my own family, and it’s not nice (two lots of Alzheimer’s, and an uncle to CJD of all things).

My solution? And whilst we can’t get into it fully on Dakka, I have carefully thought this through? Euthanasia.

Just because we can prolong a life, to the degree we can do it now raises ethical questions of its own. I mean, my brain is my moneymaker. If I start to lose my memory or motor functions to a significant degree…I’d rather be on my way than live without them. And I’d definitely want to be spared my Mum’s final days where, yes this wording is partially for shock value, she slowly starved to death over six months.

I of course respect the opinions of those who wouldn’t choose euthanasia, and it should absolutely be strongly regulated to ensure it is truly voluntary and there is no out except death. But, just as we can refuse treatment at any point? I should be able to refuse suffering.

I’ve now sorted my Expression of Wish for Life Insurance and Pension at work. And in the coming weeks I’ll sort out my formal will. So provided I don’t keep chopping and changing those? It’s gonna be my best mate getting the lot should I shuffle off this mortal coil earlier than is ideal. So if that all long predates any fatal diagnosis (prognosis?), I really don’t see the harm in allowing me to Skip To The End.

I'm absolutely with you on that, Alzheimer's/Dementia/any form of mental decline like that scares the piss out of me like nothing else.

As for other technologies? Bionics. Not prosthetics, I don't want cool replacements for damaged/missing limbs, I want the ability to electively replace limbs and organs with artificial versions.

I don't even necessarily mean superior ones, I just want a kidney that doesn't spontaneously generate calcium shurikens it fires out of my urethra, a leg that I can walk on without a limp and eyes that function adequately without progressively degenerative function.

Although superpowers would be cool too

And the thing is, the technology exists, we have awesome replacements for human body parts but we gatekeep them behind medical necessity. If I want to have my eye ripped out and replaced by the Visionator 3000 Oculomax with telescopic zoom and built-in Netflix I should have that right goddamn it.

 Flinty wrote:
The Federation and the Culture are definitely utopias worth striving for. We might just eed to push through Snow Crash to get there

Star Trek does acknowledge that you need to wipe out the donkey-caves first.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Sadly I’ve seen that in my own family, and it’s not nice (two lots of Alzheimer’s, and an uncle to CJD of all things).

My solution? And whilst we can’t get into it fully on Dakka, I have carefully thought this through? Euthanasia.

Just because we can prolong a life, to the degree we can do it now raises ethical questions of its own. I mean, my brain is my moneymaker. If I start to lose my memory or motor functions to a significant degree…I’d rather be on my way than live without them. And I’d definitely want to be spared my Mum’s final days where, yes this wording is partially for shock value, she slowly starved to death over six months.

I of course respect the opinions of those who wouldn’t choose euthanasia, and it should absolutely be strongly regulated to ensure it is truly voluntary and there is no out except death. But, just as we can refuse treatment at any point? I should be able to refuse suffering.

I’ve now sorted my Expression of Wish for Life Insurance and Pension at work. And in the coming weeks I’ll sort out my formal will. So provided I don’t keep chopping and changing those? It’s gonna be my best mate getting the lot should I shuffle off this mortal coil earlier than is ideal. So if that all long predates any fatal diagnosis (prognosis?), I really don’t see the harm in allowing me to Skip To The End.

Yeah That should def be in place even if we defeat ageing - something that the Culture had - if you had enough for any reason - you can go into hibernation or just end it all - although again religion may be something here.

Both my dad an grandmother would def have ended earlier if possible and at least here in the UK we are slowly moving towards being able to do this.

I definitely don’t advocate for it as a solution, so much as an option.

If there’s no getting out of it, and your fate is going to be long, drawn out and painful? I consider it entirely ethical to just, as I said, Skip To The End.

But I can only speak for me. By no means is euthanasia a universal answer.

Seems it was shot down in Scotland, but is currently navigating the Lords in the UK Parliament.

I agree in principle. However I think that the way it is currently implemented where it has been and is being proposed is absolutely demonic.

If self-euthanasia is to be a thing, it should absolutely NEVER have anyone from a government or anyone else involved in suggesting it or pushing it.

As things are right now, it is a solution looking for a problem while causing far too many additional ones.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
The Federation and the Culture are definitely utopias worth striving for. We might just eed to push through Snow Crash to get there

Star Trek does acknowledge that you need to wipe out the donkey-caves first.

Utopian thinking by design ends in tyranny. It can never end in anything else. Infact your statement alone is a perfectly reasonable conclusion of why it ends in tyranny.

"Just one less group that doesn't want to fit in your percieved utopia."

Hence why AI and technofuturism is in essence only thinly veiled technofeudalistic surveilance stateism. As an current exemple.

I've always said that if you are ever given an ultimatum that amounts to "choose a Dystopia to live in" you should always choose Cyberpunk. It is profoundly the least bad of any possible dystopia.

We all ready live in Cyberpunk future.

Sorry to break the news to you.

"You'd better start believing in Cyberpunk dystopias, Miss Turner...."