chr1

There is too much uncertainty in predictions like this.

E.g. if we are lucky, and AI works well for biology, we may be able to extend lifespan significantly and end up with 20bln people instead.

Ability to jump straight to waterfall doesn't prevent you from taking another hike looking specifically for those other things.

If solving any problem is possible with ai, the job of mathematician is finding new problems, not trying to do what a machine can do better.

As for training, most of it is already done by solving known problems, and no one was suggesting to forget analytical geometry so that solving school geometry problems becomes cutting edge research.

Tax system and government budget in general are very deliberate system of smoke and mirrors designed to obfuscate how the money is spent. You are paying income tax, but your employee is paying payroll tax for you, is buying health insurance to avoid tax that would have to pay if that money was given to you. You are paying part of corporate tax indirectly, paying various tariffs sales taxes etc.

There should be only property tax and income tax, and the person paying the tax should be able to choose how to spend that money. Maybe you don't care and will let your congressmen to handle it, but maybe you would change your money to go to NASA or and then the government won't be able to spend so much on a pointless war or on building a stadium.

Cost of a great apartment by 1920 standards is affordable to anyone before they are 30, the problem is that they want to add lots of nice but non-essential things to that house driving the price up.

If you subsidize building houses, you merely will drive up standard of living without moving childbearing age.

The problem is about priorities not resource constraints.

And solution will be either enough people/countries dying childless and miserable to force the remaining to assign higher priority to children, or technological development of artificial womb and lifespan enhancing drugs to make it possible to have children at 40 when their brain starts to work.

If quantum computers turn out to be able to do that, the api would be very similar to what dwave has today.

That is one will use normal computer to reformulate the task into a predefined form, submit that to quantum computer, and then use normal computer again to process the results.

It can't become mainstream, it is a very narrowly specialized hardware for a very limited set of tasks.

In that chain there is no distinction between subjective experience of mental state and evolution of physical state of the brain.

If you believe that the 'hard' problem exists then that chain must be modified.

What most of the p-zombie supporters say is merely equivalent to adding an external observer. It is like saying that a player following a sim in a game, makes sims actions more meaningful, which is kind of true but also completely irrelevant to anything that the sims do.

There is effectively infinite space up high, and low is bounded by death, so it never can average out.

> Parents don't have any choice in this either.

That's a very fucked up thing to say, governments or random strangers from internet do not have a right to decide how parent raises his child. Do you even have a child?

> I like that you shifted "adults with 15 year olds" to 20 year olds with 16-17 year olds

It was just my own experience, if you want another example in early years of Soviet Union there were 40 year olds learning to read with 6 year olds.

And in general i don't see why any combination of ages should be a problem?

Being in school does not make one educated. Keeping disruptive child in the same room with normal children, means we get fewer educated people, not more.

I went to school at 6 years, our schools were for 10 years, and at 16 i went to university. At the university with us were some 20 year olds, who went to school at 7 years, were not able to get to university in their 17, were drafted to army at 18 and came back. 20 year old being around 16-17 year olds did not cause any catastrophe.

20 year old who wants to study is not going to cause any problem for the public school either, it will even be beneficial for the class as children will see that studying is useful.

> teenagers are generally not allowed to make these choices, for good reasons

When they are not allowed to make choices, the parents are supposed to make choices for them, not corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.

Laws like "do not kill", "do not steal", have been found long before politicians existed, by the natural selection of societies. That is groups of people who did not follow these laws were largely outcompeted by those who followed.

If you decide to break the law of "do not steal" in large extent you get millions dead like it have happened in communist Russia or Maoist China. If you break it in smaller extent (e.g. by very high tax) you get stagnant economy like in EU.

In contrast to that, the laws banning children to work were adopted at the point when children did not need to work, so they are largely irrelevant. If these laws existed in 18th century London or Paris they would cause many deaths too, since there was no other way to feed these children.

So not all laws are given by politicians.

> Drop out now, we'll give you a bunch of money later

Later they only get ability to sit at the same classes at the same public school, so there is no financial incentive.

15 year olds forced to sit in classes they don't want are way more miserable than those allowed to work and feel like adults. In any case people should be allowed to make choices by themselves not be forced by the government.

> the school I went to had special classes for unruly kids

That's a great solution too, and must be available option for parents. Sadly very few schools do that, making both unruly kids and good kids miserable as a result.

> schools should be given the resources

I don't think the problem is the lack of resources, specialist for helping unruly kids is not going to cost more than a math teacher. The problem is that most schools are simply opposed to the idea of splitting students based on their ability and willingness to study. As a result they have a system that harms everyone involved.

> You mean they enroll back at a private school to get their education?

I mean the money that government wastes keeping them in school while they are 15 and don't want to learn, can be given to them later when/if they decide to learn.

> most likely the path is that they just stay at home doing nothing all day if their parents let them.

That's up to the parent to decide: leave them at home, convince them to find a job, go to special school or a class for misbehaving children, go to trade school etc.

Those who turn to vagrancy/crime do it anyway, as they have enough time outside of school too.

> child has to be in education until they turn 18.

> employing 15 year olds is [not] legal

These are not physical laws given to us from above, these are rather misguided attempts by politicians to look good, and are harmful to the society.

Imagine that instead of prisons we were forcing criminals to go spend time sitting in offices and disrupting normal work. What we do with children now is equally effective.