You replace half of a team with AI. Salary cost go immediately down, but team output can keep up for some time. You don't see the technical debt, the security issues and the prompt injection which will result in wrong invoices being sent. In six months suddenly there will be a big problem, but this quarter a lot of shareholders are happy about the cost-cutting. You may even be promoted by the time shit hits the fan, and it won't even be your problem anymore.
On the other hand there probably also is a general correction in the market after the covid hiring spree.
Has someone answered why a civilization would send "von Neumann probes" or similar into space? It would take so long for any answers from those probes to arrive that there really doesn't seem much value in them.
of course by the time we had the ability to do von Neumann Probes our anthropomorphic assumption of time scales may have changed.
How much would human life span need to increase for a von Neumann Probe to seem reasonable. I would think a life span of 600 and you're thinking, sure I won't get to see it through, but my allotted genetic offspring that I am allowed at age 500 if either of my other two have failed might.
If you expect to live past a few hundred years it isn't clear why your lifespan wouldn't be indefinite. The prerequisites for achieving the former appear to be more or less the same as those of the latter.
>it isn't clear why your lifespan wouldn't be indefinite.
it also isn't clear why it would be, when achieving something not achieved before you end up uncovering undiscovered problems, opportunities, and constraints.
The point is that reliably making it to a few hundred years requires (AFAICT) full understanding and control over all the elementary biological processes. If you already understand and are capable of freely manipulating every primitive in the system it isn't clear what's left to break.
To put this in mechanical terms, once I know how to replace every last component in my car and have the ability to fabricate new parts for the body and frame under what conditions could my car ever be unrepairable?
and my point still remains, once I know how to do something that has never been done is there a chance that some new factor will be revealed by this ability which will somehow constrain my ability to achieve my true goals? As the description of the scenario was of course fictional I decided to describe it as though some constraint unfamiliar to us now still kept things from going onward.
One particular constraint you can imagine in this fictional situation is that psychologically people who live more than 3 centuries start to have a deep burnout of existence, because there no longer seems to be any challenge or newness, causing them to experience extreme depression and psychological illness of various sorts that most people do not experience nowadays with our short lifespans. Thus there are psychological profiles done, if you are around 500 and you are not shown to have hit the psychological end point of your existence you can be allowed one more child, also dependent on how many children you have had before. This however will be your last child, because no rebuilt human has ever managed to escape "age psychosis" after 600 years of age.
Right. We have no idea how another species perceives time. This could be nothing to them.
And even if they do perceive it like us, that hasn't stopped humans from great projects. How many generations did it take to complete Stonehenge or the Great Wall of China? We're still on top of Voyager too after 50 years.
It would take ~5 million years (in the sender's frame of reference) for a probe to make the journey to Andromeda and then send another back with any information. What would the point of that be?
I read an interesting book called Count to a Trillion.
Astronomers detected an antimatter star a mere 50 light–years from Earth, and the US launched an unmanned mission to go there and learn what it could. Luckily the probe was programmed to transmit its findings multiple times, because the first few transmissions were missed; terrorists had launched a bioweapon that nearly caused an extinction event. Eventually Europe recovered enough to be paying attention. Appended like a footnote to the end of the probe’s transmission of everything it found were pictures of the writing covering the surface of the only moon of the only planet in the system, a gas giant.
The Europeans launched a manned mission a few decades later. One token American, the inventor of the suspended animation technique the crew would be using, was invited along. They went, they learned quite a lot from the Monument, they harvested a quite a lot of antimatter, and then they returned.
What they could decode from the Monument was mostly mathematics. A large portion of it was proofs for various theorems of [cliometrics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliometrics), or quantitative history. With a proper understanding of the mathematics, anyone can predict and even control the evolution of any complex system. It could be a computer program, a network, an organism, an ecology, a society, or all of the above at once. The other interesting bit of math was a complete proof of a system for calculating the value of a trade, given the distance between the participants and their relative level of technology and intelligence. It proves that profitable trade is possible between distant star systems, provided both sides know enough. Proper use of the system allows both sides to know the profit of any trade in advance, meaning no prior coordination need be required. Any two parties can use it to launch trade missions that take millennia to arrive knowing that the other side will already have made the same calculations and be expecting the mission.
The rest of what they decode is astronomy and history. The Monument records that a group of aliens in the dwarf galaxy M3 claim ownership and responsibility for the whole galaxy. Through several layers of delegation they are organizing the creation of life here in the Milky Way. In particular, any and all life arising near the antimatter star was seeded by an intelligence inhabiting a globular cluster 1000 light–years away. Therefore humans owe that intelligence a huge debt and must repay it, effectively making everyone on Earth a slave. As soon as they detect anyone tampering with the antimatter star they are instructed to send a mission to deracinate the planet, carry away whatever life they find, and use it to colonize other star systems. This mission cannot not be sent quickly, as we’re expected to be quite primitive and thus not worth spending very much on, but it will arrive in ~11,000 years whether anyone likes it or not. The crew of the ship then depart for Earth.
When they got back to Earth they found that the whole world was strange. Hundreds of years have past, all the countries are different, and their homes are gone. They end up using some of the antimatter as weapons, defeating the militaries of the world and declaring themselves ruler of all. Between their military power, their knowledge of cliometrics (primitive though it is at this point), and the vast riches of the antimatter that they brought with them, they manage to live in some style.
The main character (the token American from before) and his fiance discover one additional proof of importance: any form of life can be elevated above their boss if they can prove themselves more capable of long–term thinking. All you have to do is engage in really long–term trade. They decide that they should make Humanity equal to their boss’s boss’s boss’s boss, the intelligence at the dwarf galaxy M3, by sending a mission there and back. It’ll take 77,000 years but as long as Humanity survives that long and doesn’t forget about them then Humanity will be vindicated and will no longer be enslaved to anyone. They plan to depart the day after their wedding. They spend the night after their wedding in a disused hotel thousands of miles above the Pacific ocean in the middle of a space elevator.
Alas, that night the main character’s rival calls him out for a duel. He agrees and meets the guy at the base of the elevator. But the duel is a trap; his rival cheats and the space elevator is severed. He is buried under the rubble, wounded but alive, as his wife makes her way up to the ship. She can’t turn the ship around and come back for him and so must continue the mission without him. He decides that one night with his wife is not enough and has to find a way to live on Earth for the next 77,000 years or so until she gets back. Cue sequels.
So there you go. Love seems like a pretty good answer to me, but technically any sufficiently long–term motivation would suffice. I’m sure that you could imagine some, if you put your mind to it.
I was never convinced by cliometrics (including the Asimov version in Foundation). Yes, there are patterns and structural forces, but history is too subject to chaos (in the mathematical sense) for any precise long range predictions.
That's probably true (although not proven!), but every science fiction story is allowed to ask the reader to suspend disbelief when it breaks one law of physics. (At least according to Campbell.) Since the story has no FTL travel or communications it can use that forbearance somewhere else.
If we're talking about civilizations that have access to energy that's on the order of many stars, the civilization itself can be considered a meta-organism that spans many millennia. Launching probes that take hundreds or thousands of years to report back becomes a small fraction of overall lifespan.
Sure, but you then can't access the computronium, because communication is so bad.
Also, I wonder if good old-fashioned computing is interesting at all to a civilization that's had access to advanced AI and quantum computing for a while.
Like we haven't really figured out how to get an ML model to run on a quantum computer, or how to build a quantum-native computer (i.e. surface of a black hole, or some other way that doesn't rely on our current sense of quantum error correction), but I don't know of any physical laws that preclude it.
I'd bet if aliens invaded our galaxy, they'd go for the super black holes in the center, or some other resource beyond our use and understanding, not this random water planet on the edge.
> Sure, but you then can't access the computronium, because communication is so bad.
Who says all the computronium has to stay far away? Just move it all closer together as you build it.
Second, you can spend much of it running parallel tasks that don’t need to synchronize or communicate often. You could run quadrillions of humans instead of enlarging yourself to fill all of that new computronium.
You don't access the computronium. You move into it.
"good old-fashioned computing is interesting at all"
"Computronium" is defined as "the best computing power available". I deliberately selected it as a neutral term that does not depend on any particular model of QM or black holes or anything else.
Personally I doubt it's exactly one thing because optimizing for different types of computing is likely to result in a spectrum of computroniums rather than just the one, but the term flexes to encompass that easily enough.
The point is, you build something in that system over there for the same reason a normal human might buy a bit of property and put a house on it. The human in question isn't going "oh, I don't need to do that because the world already has hundreds of millions of residences". The human does that so that the residence belongs to them. The hundreds of millions of residences that do not belong to them do not factor into that question.
Well, if you personally were building von Neumann machines do any purpose in the solar system, would YOU be interested in sending some to neighboring systems knowing that you could conceivably get a response in your lifetime.
Would you be at all interested in expanding that project to outlast you?
And even if you personally wouldn’t be so inclined, surely you know or have met people who might?
Once you have the self replication, expanding scope may just be additional code…
The dilemma of spending significant amount of effort and resources for a colonizing project when the result won't benefit the enterprising society is not new. When looking for a reason, considering only the (individuals' or collective's) benefits on a rational basis does not make much sense indeed. Most likely there must be something more, akin to a religious goal, aiming for species' or civilization's greater good.
Especially Cheney pushed hard for this, ignored the intelligence communities assessments, then got his own source, a burned source, Ahmed Chalabi to fabricate reasons for an invasion.
The U.S. can't win this war. John Kiriakou did a nice analysis on this on his recent podcasts. "Iran just has to prolong the war and survive it to win". Trump on the other hand needs a decisive win fast, or the economic and political fallout will be too big. As long as Iran can launch cheap drones and keep a small but steady pressure there is just no path out of this for the U.S. except to go home.
> This is the second sudden bombing campaign the country has suffered in as many years – they do not want there to be a third next year and a fourth the year after that. But promises not to bomb them don’t mean a whole lot: establishing deterrence here means inflicting quite a lot of pain. In practice, if Iran wants future presidents not to repeat this war, the precedent they want to set is "attacking Iran is a presidency-ending mistake." And to do that, well, they need to end a presidency or at least make clear they could have done.
Can they do that: yes, keep Hormuz shut until much closer to November, and "the economic and political fallout will be too big."
While it can very well be true, I wonder if we don't exagerate the will of the iranian regime and its ablity in the current time to think this far ahead. I see them more in survival mode, I'm not sure they fight for future deterence, maybe the goals align currently but seems to me to be happenstance. They seem resilient but I wonder how much they would be close of falling. Of course, I wouldn't have done this war, and I certainly would stop it now.
> They seem resilient but I wonder how much they would be close of falling
While neither of us have any special insight into that, and no-one has certainty, I urge you to read the essay linked, as this topic is in fact discussed with historic examples. "There is a frequent mistake, often from folks who deal in economics, to assume that countries will give up on wars when the economics turn bad ... There is a great deal of ruin in a nation."
You are right that the the Iranian regime's short and longer term goals align. But, happenstance or not, they are aligned and likely will stay that way.
> I wouldn't have done this war, and I certainly would stop it now.
That’s the thing there is no stopping it now. Trump walks away and Iran taxes every barrel that goes through the straight. There is no return to normal.
> That’s the thing there is no stopping it now. Trump walks away and ...
Right, Short of unconditional surrender, it is very hard for one party in a war to just end it without the other side also agreeing to cease. Otherwise, walking away just lets them target your back.
This is so interesting. Especially since it's kinda weird to train a robot to mimicking human play. I wonder what a perfect robot what actually behave like.
It wouldn't need to split-step to activate muscles, the footwork would probably be minimal. I imagine a lot of different unusual looking swings to confuse human players, while still making perfect contact. It could make really late drop shots or even rotate the racket at the last moment for crazy angles.
The humans in the video shot easy balls to the robot, which returns more difficult balls. It's the human that is doing all the running. The robot is quite static. However with better software and better hardware is possible that the robot will be so fast that it will miss no ball, and so strong to return balls faster than any human can reach. So there is no need to play fine shots. That could be a goal if we want to provide automated training partners to humans. If we want to win games against humans, stronger and faster is more than enough.
I don't know much about tennis, but the perfect opponent is probably some form of slightly concave wall that will always bounce the ball into the court no matter the angle you send the ball at it
Another big problem is the mentality. "We have always done it this way" and "I don't want to change it" is extremely prevalent. I say this as a German.
This is also reflected in the big political parties, which would rather keep these beliefs alive than inspire change.
I really don't see a solid economic future for Germany when enough other countries implement more progressive economic policies.
The willingness to change is there, it's mostly the motives and what is being targeted where the problems are.
We as a country lost our balls.
Decisions are increasingly made on an emotional basis, and the poster child for this has been the politically calculated exit of nuclear power based on the Fukushima accident to gain an election win.
Most of senior management is trying to act like suddenly they are some cool nimble startup CEO that can burn through cash until the subscription fees for lane keeping assists and heated seats are paying the bills.
It's all buzzwords being thrown around without anyone really caring for reality.
Just looking at how the "dress code" changed over the last 10 years in automotive is funny by itself.
Hefty statements, zero backing and ever shrinking balls.
I somehow have the feelings that you two actually agree quite a lot. Because there are two populations there: one who'd be able and willing to change, and the other busy to protect their own accounts and after me the deluge. It's all which one of these are at the buttons, and I reckon it's the second.
> Another big problem is the mentality. "We have always done it this way" and "I don't want to change it" is extremely prevalent. I say this as a German.
Interestingly it's not only the domain of the conservatives (e.g. CDU/CSU) to cut any discussion this way.
Social democrats (and their voters) use the same argument, just in instances where it fits their program (e.g. labour laws).
> I really don't see a solid economic future for Germany when enough other countries implement more progressive economic policies.
The only party suggesting any such policies consistently fails to clear the 5% threshold as of late. Evidently, the electorate is satisfied with the status quo.
Yeah, I would call both CDU and SPD conservatives, SPD is just a left-conservative with a focus on labour rights. CDU is a bigger problem though, because their voter base is more loyal, and the only way their voters are going to migrate if CDU loses its grip is towards the far-right.
A bigger issue than the fine (which Much didn't have to pay because he won in court) is that the police thought it was a swell idea to search his house.
The fine was wrong, too, and the amount (6000€!) was absurd.
She should have challenged him to a duel instead. That would have been a lot more fair than mobilizing the state to fight battles that should never have been fought AND it would have put the risk where it should have been, namely on her shoulders (and stomach and thighs) instead of on his.
The German police thought it was within its rights to demand that a foreign social media platform hand over identifying information on a user that apparently called her "well-rounded" in a less polite manner.
I don't think the German police should search citizen's houses or demand identifying information about people who say things that aren't nice (but true).
Oh, it's really percentage of all produced. Weird that they worded it in a way that makes their argument weaker.
>Based on available studies, an estimated 4-9% of all textile products put on the market in Europe are destroyed before use, amounting to between 264,000 and 594,000 tonnes of textiles destroyed each year.
On the other hand there probably also is a general correction in the market after the covid hiring spree.
reply