lokischild

You lost me somewhere between "I’m told by my boss to delete a directory on the file server. Which I do." and the rest of the story.

Did you misunderstand? I don't see the logical conclusion

This is a good example, because Chess rules do not surpass human intellectual capacity. With enough time, you can understand the reasoning of an AI.

But when it comes to raw intellectual superiority, say, explain the logic behind new mathematical or physical concepts and discoveries, very high level predictions, we come to our human limit and cannot surpass it.

The AI can give us implants to improve our intelligence, but only to a certain limited degree, our biological brain will slow us down significantly.

That is the barrier we cannot possibly cross in a timespan of human life.

It seems inevitable to me the moment AI capacity seriously surpasses human (as a whole) capacity in any specific topic, it becomes an oracle. I hear of efforts to translate machine decision making to human understandable terms, but if it is a question of raw intelligence, it will quickly become impossible to understand.

I sincerely hope this one is finally not a semi-hoax and delivers. I won't get my hopes up so soon though.

On a side note, I don't want to argue over this, but just saying I found two points (compound prices, safety) addressed. It reads kinda like a lot of hype... What do you take from the articles, how this reasearch project is more promising or further down the road then the many promising looking projects before them that ended up failing? You don't see a pattern? This one is now different, how?

I am reading the same 'new tech hype' articles again and again. Very prominent on battery tech. These articles create unjustified hype by focussing on a few promising test results under lab conditions with prototypes. What they fail to mention are all other factors that contribute to a succesful new technology. Like just as examples, scalability, robustness, promise of ease of mass production, raw compound price, safety as good or better then proven tech, compatibility with the market standard.

There were literally hundreds of exactly those articles I read or skimmed through in the past, none of them made it to mass market. It's almost as if there might be an underlying scam that produces these research hypes to grab investor money or something. Until the real problems are adressed, or looked at and then the research ceases.

I mean I really hope there are some leaps in battery technology soon, as many do, because it does not hold up at all to moore's law as it is kind of needed for mobile devices to progress as fast as silicon or other advancements. I just don't care for misleading articles anymore :)

I have a hunch that there is no artifical process that could possibly compete with what nature already has. The answer is plants. So the solution would be a way to sustainably grow a lot of plants in a short time.

But another main factor is the destruction of the densest of those ecosystems, the rain forest on a large scale.

That is my answer, stop humans/companies/countries from destroying the rain forest on a large scale (I'm looking at brazil and neighbors) and think of ways to rebuild lost rainforest in an efficient way. I am going to wager, from the knowledge and experience I gathered in my years of living, there is no other solution that is sustainable.

A reality we need to change with one discussion, one petition vote, one voicing your disagreement at a time.

Mountaineers do not stare at the peak of the giant mountain all the time, they look in front of them and take the next step. So should we. Don't be discouraged, things can change for the better again if enough people wake up and become aware of specific maldevelopments.

It is good to have this pointed out from a scientific perspective. But now comes the tricky part - will this information be drowned in paid mock-studies stating otherwise, or water the case by casting doubt? Will there be actual protection of children and young adults from the legislative side, or is this again one of the cases where the money to be made is just too big and politicians too easily bought, to change anything and to prevent turbo capitalism when it becomes harmful to people? Similarities to food regulations and sugar products come to mind.

You seem to make many assumptions that are, AFAIK, false. The data is there and gets stored indefinitely. It is not only monetized for ADs, but for surveillance as well. Companies and state contact the company and buy that data about you.

You really can't expect security researchers not to react appalled (it was called "toxic") being dismissed and censored (pardon the pun) like that.

I hope Signal and Marlinspike do some reflecting and soul searching and realize they are all working on the same side...

There are literally hundreds of FREE stockfish packages with frontend all good to go. To ask 99$ and lie through your teeth when it comes to authorship and performance is a ruse to rip people off, with the help of a famous name, plain and simple.