EdEarl

Our country exists because the people in 1776 were being abused by the law of the crown. Laws are not necessarily ethical, and people who try to abuse people using the law should be stopped.

There are currently several plans from solar airplanes to LEO satellites to make an internet for all. Full wave antennas will be shorter than 1.2 cm, which suggests that mobile internet access is possible to a swarm of LEO satellites. If this technology is developed, anyone could walk around with a VOIP telephone.

I agree, except we will go extinct sooner or later; the fate of the Universe seems to assure our demise.

I'll give an opinion and some facts. Blood is water and other things, but drops, flows, and splatters similar to water and other water based fluids. First, fluids are gases and liquids. I think you only meant to ask about liquids, because gasses don't act like blood (technical). Some oils, especially thin ones will drop similar to blood on some surfaces, but fall differently on water than blood. Moreover, thick oils, tars and waxes act much different than blood. I think that bounds your question a bit. I hope someone else will post.

No, it is more like a plea to anyone who reads this thread to post about their evidence, if anyone else has any. I cannot prove, but suspect there is no such evidence.

I am confused about your misunderstanding. Can you tell me which parts of my statement you do not understand?

One day, our galaxy will consist of stars and remnants from our local group of galaxies, which will be the entirety of the Visible Universe. All other galaxies will be receding faster than the speed of light, so invisible. If man survives until this time, we will certainly inhabit other stars, for old Sol will be too dim to be of much use or wrecked by a collision. The survival of humanity may not be an ethical concern in this context; however, it is my opinion that wishing human extinction is objectionable. Thus, I recommend inhabiting other Stars. However we can always make Dyson swarms and avoid planetary pollution. I don't have any evidence. Are you asking about the nature of evidence? If so, that's a topic for another thread, and probably already exists.

What evidence?

Since the probability of mass extinction on Earth looms a real possibility in the not too distant future, I'd say it is essential to move a few people to another place, a safe haven. How about moving a million to Mars with technology to populate the Solar system with a Dyson swarm in case Earth is uninhabitable for a while. AI, 3D printing, and robots are key technologies. ATM it would take perhaps 100,000 years to get to Alpha Centauri, which is so long the probability of travelers getting to their destination is questionable. It would be easier to put that ship in orbit around the Sun and let them live there, i.e., start the Dyson Swarm. However, we should protect humanity when the Sun finally dies, but that is a long time into the future. I think this question is essentially, should we colonize as much of the universe as possible, or should we allow abiogenesis to work wherever it will and be content with watching the Universe do its thing. I don't know of any evidence that says we should conquer the Universe; however, we are a species who like to conquer.

Many are duped by lies (propaganda). I can partly understand why they resist climate change, but have difficult understanding why they are willing to take the chance of mass extinction and the human race. Do they really think lots of money will save them.

Once the two parties offered different things. Today they are all puppets with the same masters. It's all political theater.

AutoML is the first AI automation tool that I've heard of; although, there may be others. Previously, before the current AI epoch, Computer Aided Engineering and Design systems of various types were sold. However, few were a commercial success. The AutoML team seems to have a good technique, since they are integrating AI into the system they are designing and putting AI into the systems it produces. Any time they can save developing will be used for other things. In the limit, an AI will be able to do anything a human can. At this time this tool falls short of that goal, but I believe they will continue to improve AutoML and perhaps build other related tools. Their design with data driven software packages means an AI could be composed of a million packages, in which case programming personnel cost would be too much unless tools can significantly reduce the workload. The important part of the human job is to lend insight and direction to the less than genus AI tools. AI developers have an eye on the Singularity as if it were the last Nobel Prize. I think they are on the right path, and that they will succeed within 10-15 years.

I didn't see: AI is smarter than us, so they take over politics and business, and run everything as they see fit. Anyone who opposes robot rule will be taken care of.

We'll see.

It won't take very sophisticated robots to displace 80% of the workforce. Amazon is automating order fulfillment. Fast food will be prepared and delivered by robot. The way food comes to us is likely to undergo a major evolution, while simplifying the process. The food industry will take longer to fully automate. Cell phones will be fitted with biosensors and medical apps. Lots of people can be replaced with less than conscious AI.

OK, it seems our dissonance is one of two things. You don't think robots will be capable of doing anything we can do and/or a zero cost economy doesn't make sense to you. Although, your reasons may run deeper. IMO we have or nearly have a super computer big enough to run a conscious AI. If not, it won't be many years. Moreover, several groups developing conversational AI are continually improving their systems. I know one developer said that he thought he would make a conscious AI before 2030, which is not reliable info. On the other hand, there seems to be a lot of money being spent on AI. For grins, let's consider what it means. The first AGI may run slow, in which case it may develop faster computer hardware, and compress years of advancements into months. The second AGI starts the design of a super robot to give the intelligence legs. That development is compressed in time, and another AGI starts working on resource manufacturing systems. More copies automate all factories, fields, mines, shipping, etc. And, soon robots will do everything, except where we do for ourselves.

There are no alternative jobs being created for most factory workers when they are replaced by a lights out operation. Don't worry, AI will replace CEOs, other executives, educators, maintenance, construction, etc., every job.

That you think it essential to be patient seems unrealistic when 80% of people have no jobs, little or no food, clothing, shelter or medical care. There aren't enough jails to hold them. Asking such people to be patient is asking them to lay down and die. What do you think can be done to avoid this scenario?

It is unrealistic to think real change will wait for political change. IMO The least time 80% of jobs will be eliminated by automation is 12 years. Even if it were 25 years, jobs will be gone before politics as usual can changes as you suggest. We must try to make political changes, but we cannot afford to be patient. It really is time to expect the impossible and hope better than usual is good enough. Clearly, the impossible is beyond our reach, but the usual is not enough.

There is no button of course, people will have to endure whatever changes occur. If people will not vote for real change, days of no jobs will be forced by automation. That will increase the pain to deadly levels, do you think people will endure the pain or riot? The current economic system will cannot continue indefinitely, a mass extinction seems to be in progress. We face an existential threat. The best alternative is for people to manage themselves and their political and economic processes to eliminate climate change and ill affects to the environment. What you are saying is man seems to be killing himself and much of the environment. I hope you are wrong and we can make the hard changes.

If the conditions that cause an epigenetic change in a generation occur for multiple generations, does the probability of a related genetic change increase or change in any way.

Depends on pain and tolerance. At some point people riot and riots sometimes become revolutions. I hope things don't get that bad, but current policies seem to assure that end.

Time for another party.

I am concerned for the near future. So many things are being done with greedy intent, including the assaults on freedom of speech and reality of reporting.