Smellz_Of_Elderberry

Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_jczsoal wrote

They, wouldn't use ai and a robot army to do any of this. The logistics of a culling would be quite elementary if you weren't using robots.. There are several viable ways.

A highly transmissable virus, or pathogen with a long dormant phase, and a near 100% death rate. By the time symptoms start popping up from the contamination of say, corn syrup, or any food staple, the overwhelming majority of the world would already have been exposed.

Or one could introduce chemical agents designed to sterilize over long periods of consumption, or to initiate incurable disease early in life. (The long game)

A robot army is infinitely more work, and more complex, and provides significantly less reward.

Ai has already unlocked an unimaginable amount of new proteins and chemicals.. it will soon unlock the downright cornucopia of genetic engineering... Imagine mosquitos that reproduce every time they bite someone. Eggs enter the circulatory system, hatch, and grow inside the body. Nothing is stopping this, except resources and intelligence, both of which will be available aplenty post agi.

You're right that there is little incentive to do this, but you only need it to happen one time. Perhaps 99.9999999% of the elites or people in general won't seek such an outcome, but all it would take is 1.

Hopefully I'm just a negative Nancy, with an overactive imagination.

−4

Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_j71svc1 wrote

I don't think you understand what happens when something becomes as easy and quick as photoshopping a ducks head onto someone..

>I don't think people will ever just get used to and be cool with people putting them in pornography.

Also, of course you don't. You weren't born into a time where it was as easy to do as flipping a light switch. Maybe they won't "be cool" with it. But it won't have any of the societal effects or mentally abusive effects anymore.. which is the real harm of such things. Do u think people will ever get used to realistic violence in movies? Lol. Of course we know they did..

I'm not saying this is the world I want, btw.. Just the world which will come. Those born to it adapt. When there are millions and millions of these videos, it will cease to have any real meaning anymore.

You not being able to believe it doesn't change that. It just means you will have a hard time adapting.

0

Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_j70kek8 wrote

Yeah, this kind of stuff happening hurts me deeply.

So many of these companies are full of prudish cowards. This technology needs to be free to all, not sterilized to the point where I end up despising it.

Funny thing, the ones who scream about diversity are some of the most sterile and uncompromising people imaginable. Can't wait for the people without corporate billions and with some heart to actually get a whack at this tech.. It's going to change the world, hopefully they are able to unfold its potential before all the cowards pull up the ladder behind them..

If u guys find that alternative, let me know please lol.

1

Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_j70fo0o wrote

The problem in part is that we view sex as some taboo that needs to be hidden. In the future, it's going to be even more open.. Video porn has already largely desensitized ppl. Long gone are the days of showing ankle as being sexually risqué.

Deep nude is a thing and what do you think that technology will be more likely to do? Be used as a weapon? Or used to the point that people stop being so worried about something as inane as nudity.. Large parts of the world don't care about it.. have communal baths, or outright just dont view nudity as sexual.

This stuff will result in culture shock and a radical change in generational norms. Your generation freaked out when Jill had her nudes leaked. The ones coming after deep fake will just not care, and will think you a weird old person with weird cultural beliefs when you do. They will look at you and I the way we looked at our great grand parents demanding we finish everything on our plates, because they were raised by a generation alive before the creation of refrigeration..

−2

Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_j6kpl98 wrote

Innovation != useful

If your innovation isn't useful in the real world, it's not even really an innovation.

Popular innovation = useful innovation.

You build a combustion engine, it is impossible to mass produce, and only 3 people have them.

I take your engine and make one that is simpler and easier to mass manufacture and cheaper to produce. Yours might be better, more innovative, but mine is the only one that's actually useful to society.

1

Smellz_Of_Elderberry OP t1_j6ftmsn wrote

Good points.

I just don't get why people aren't able to take greater risks, like say you have a terminal illness? Why not let people decide for themselves? I feel like I would want to take greater risks.

Also, we saw a whole new kind of vaccine get released in record time. Why isn't this kind of speed possible with other kinds of drugs?

2

Smellz_Of_Elderberry OP t1_j6f9nyq wrote

Ya, but maybe it can move faster with ai. In silico clinical trials, and a bunch of other tech could shorten testing to months instead of years.

But you are certainly right, medicine does move slow as heck. I often wish it moved faster, even if that meant taking bigger risks.

5

Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_j6c29ll wrote

Reply to comment by ginger_gcups in I’m ready by CassidyHouse

You're already in the, "billionaire with golden toilets is president of the United States" timeline.

Seems like pretty good evidence we are already in the simulation.. It surprises me how much this actually seems like the truth....

14