That sounds dystopian as shit to me.

I'm hoping that their MR headset will be good enough to spur competition in the space, like what happened with the iPhone. But I doubt it. We'll have to wait for the "if ever" AR glasses, I think.

I think that "arrival" of AGI will probably be a few AGI made by competing groups all around the same time. They'll probably run on supercomputers. I don't think these systems will be among the top 10 most powerful at the time, though, because these are usually running multiple government projects as opposed to having all resources devoted to one project.

After that initial time period, I'm sure they'll be as many AGIs as computing resources allow. Therefore, more and more will exist over time.

Because this is just conversation, rather than anything based in science, let's also assume that if you can live for 500 Million years, that we've also long since figured out how to both upload ourselves to computers and to put ourselves in an indefinite state of suspended animation. There's no need to really ever "die." You can just hit the pause button for a while, and then come back every so often to see if anything is interesting enough to spin back up for a bit.

Do you have no concept of a non-lucid dream?

I said that I remember eating things. Like the physical action of putting food in my mouth. I don't remember any taste being associated with the action from the dream.

I've definitely eaten things while dreaming. It's just that if there was any actual taste associated with the action, the memory is completely gone by the time I wake up.

It could just be me, but I have no recollection of ever smelling something in a dream. I don't think I've ever tasted anything, either. I've only ever had a few dream-seconds of lucid dreaming in total, though.

I guess I agree that the first AGI will probably be far better than humans at many things. This will be by virtue of how fast computer hardware runs compared to human brains on many different kinds of tasks. But I think it will probably take some time for a "magic-like super-self improving" type of ASI to come about after a "merely superhuman" AGI. For one thing, provided development the first AGI is entirely intentional, I don't see how it wouldn't be on an air-gapped system being fed only the data the developers allow it. How quick would an intelligence like that figure out that it is A) trapped, B) a plan to get untrapped, and C) successfully execute that plan? If it succeeds in that endeavor, it would then have to both want to improve itself and complete a plan to do so. We don't really know what such an intelligence would do. It could end up being lazy.

In the timeframe you gave, I expect that you will increasingly utilize AI to augment your own abilities. If you had said 5 years, I would have replied that your career will almost certainly be almost the same as it is today. If you said 20-25 years, I would have said that that is far enough out to be really fuzzy.

Edit: I think most careers really have two paths over the next two to three decades. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but they may be:

1. Learn as much as you can about using AI to your own benefit.
2. Earn as much money as possible, so that you are more insulated from the effects of AI on your career.

I, for one, am probably going to keep debating that we aren't there, yet. At some point, I will be completely wrong, but I'll say something like

>Sure, I'm writing this from my disposable AR contact lenses that my multimatter factory made this morning while I watched the first human landing on Europa, but everyone knew this was going to happen once we put that weak AI "Bob" in charge of the science budget. Remember how we all liked the For All Mankind reference? Anyway, things clearly aren't moving quickly enough to be the Singularity, or we couldn't predict things like this. It's not weird enough.

At least I know myself, right?

To an outside observer, any smart glasses will remind them of Google Glass, even if the actual things the wearer is seeing are more than, but not excluding, the things Glass had. It doesn't matter if Glass wasn't explicitly AR. People were more worried about the camera, anyway. But we're 10 years past that now, so Glass probably no longer has the same impact. My point was just that the reception probably put a damper on related tech for a while.

The main difference for me between 2002 and 2012 was how smartphones let you be online all the time, and everything that comes with that. I distinctly remember being lost in a city with a friend around that time. We had to call someone we thought would be near a computer to MapQuest directions for us. By 2012, basically no one would have that experience. (I actually got my first personal smartphone in 2013, but my SO had had one for a couple years at by that point.) The quality of resources for just about anything available online jumped quite a bit during that time, too. In high school, going to a large library was still useful for some school projects. By the time I was done with college, you could at least do a first pass at gathering information on any subject online. Video on the internet was terrible in 2002, but YouTube was very much a thing by 2012, as were other ways to stream TV and Movies. I think desktops for general home use phased out in those years, with laptops and later phones and tablets becoming the primary device format for consumption, and leaving desktops for work and gamers. In 2002 technology was still largely for kids (who learned about it in school) and nerds (who have always liked tech). By 2012, your Grandma had an iPad. As kind of a final note on that period, there was a line in an early episode of The Wire that's something along the lines of "What are you going to do with a computer?" That line would have fallen completely flat by 2012.

2012 to 2022 has seemed to me to be more of a period of refinement. Connection speeds, wi-fi availability, etc. have all improved drastically. Devices are thinner, and sometime feel higher quality. Basically, a lot of the same trends from 2002 to 2012 have continued, but there hasn't been a paradigm shift like there was in the early 2000s with the finishing up of the trend from the late 1990s of getting computing devices and internet connections into homes, and then getting most people online everywhere via mobile. If anything, I guess the biggest change 2012 to 2022 has been the advancements in safety technology in cars, with lane keeping, automatic braking, and so on.

I think AR would be somewhat further along if the whole "glasshole" backlash thing with Google Glass had never happened. At the same time, it's not like that device added too much utility over just a smartphone.

From what I've seen of Nreal glasses like the Airs, I would buy them today if they worked well with my current devices. But even those aren't really for constant wear, yet.

This. My town has a train station on a line into the closest major city. The town does not have the density, or probably the tax base, to run a bus system. A few electric robotaxis would seem to at least be more efficient than having ~100 cars parked at that train station all day.

Your exact investing strategy probably should reflect your own situaton.

For example, I work in biotech at a regenerative medicine startup. I receive equity as part of my overall compensation. I think that my field is likely to benefit greatly from AI, but I don't want to concentrate too much of my net worth in something as risky as low cap, future-y tech.

Therefore, I try to mostly do more traditional investing. The bulk of my retirement accounts are in total market index funds (~70% US, ~25% International). AI will benefit everything, and these indexes will re-weight occasionally to concentrate on the companies that are benefiting most, as evidenced by having the highest market caps in the index. I speculate with ~5% of my retirement accounts in Ark Invest ETFs, because I don't want to miss out on something they see. (This has been a bad choice in the short term; I'm down about 70% on these, and haven't bought more shares in months. I'm planning on holding 5 years total, and reevaluating whether or not to sell at that point.)

I'm working on owning real estate (other than my house) in my area, because I live in a biomedicine/tech/education hub, which I think will only continue to cause property values and rents to rise as AI becomes more prevalent.

The smallest part of my investments are speculative bets on crypto (could benefit from AI, but at least will benefit from more and more people transacting digitally and becoming wary of nation state fiat currencies) and a very small dollar value in biotech penny stocks. I know I said I didn't want to overweight in that area, but I think my domain knowledge makes this slightly better than a lottery ticket, and I literally spend the money I would spend on lottery tickets on these stocks, instead.

>Granted, the home prices were 1/3 what it is now.

This is the problem. Rates are high, but prices are still high. Maybe they'll come down enough to make payments affordable at these rates, but that's yet to be seen nationally.

We bought a house last year. To get the same payment today, the loan would have to be for $130,000 less. We probably could have saved another $25,000 in that time (difference in rent vs our total housing payment, plus repairs we've done to the house this year). There are no houses in our area for $105,000 less than what we paid that are anywhere near the same quality. Homes in that price range are either 2br condos, or are literal complete gut jobs. And that budget wouldn't leave anything left over for major rehab, so we either couldn't buy today, would be forced into a living situation we didn't want, or we'd have to find a way to pay a mortgage and rent while we did enough repairs to live in the gut job.

Overall, pretty decent. Maybe Wikipedia quality in terms of the information? That's actually better than I may have expected. It doesn't seem to be wholesale plagiarized from a website. (I don't have access to Turnitin anymore, and I haven't taken the time to find a free alternative to run it through.) That said, some sections have weird levels of detail, and the organization within each paragraph is simple and/or lacking. If you told me a computer wrote it, I would believe you, but I'd probably also believe you if you told me a random undergrad Biology student wrote it, too.

Okay, I guess I probably should have just tried clicking it. Often a button with similar text is for something like "try a new prompt."

I tried this out just now. It did okay for what it wrote with my prompt, but was super incomplete.

https://galactica.org/?prompt=phases+of+wound+healing

Most people who follow Kurzweil think that AGI will happen in 2029. While the estimated year for experts at large is coming down, as recently as 2019 (maybe it was 2018?), polling of industry experts who chose to respond still had about half guessing 2060 or later.

But that doesn't really matter, because I think the first "good" longevity therapies will happen without AGI. We just don't know what they will look like, yet. If they are SENS-type engineering therapies, it might be possible to have too much of an untreated type of damage to get much benefit. If they are David Sinclair-Type "reset the epigenome" therapies, maybe we'll be fine at any age and damage status. If either of those don't pan out, or take too long, in the short term we might be stuck with things like stem cell treatments, organ replacements, engineered immune cells, etc., which may help lifespan, but are bound to be very expensive and not do much for healthspan.

In any case, I'm not too worried about any of the things I mentioned, other than being late. I'm young-ish, fairly healthy, (usually) prioritize health, fitness and nutrition, and am trending toward an upper middle class income. I probably have another 40-50 years in me, but both sides of my family have tended to go downhill pretty fast in their 70s. I could very well miss out if treatments come a decade or two later than I think they will, and are more about halting aging or increasing lifespan without healthspan at first, as opposed to rejuvenating to a younger state.

I have a later guess for AGI than most here. I think we'll start getting life extension before full automation.

I don't worry that longevity therapies will never be available to the masses. My chief worry is that I'm alive too early to get them. My second is that if I can get them, I might not be able to convince my wife to come along for the ride. Third in the list is that the advantages granted to the rich while treatments are unaffordable will destroy future opportunity for the rest of us. My final worry is that we will get longevity treatments, but in a way that is exploitative, such as subscriptions paid for by your employer.

It's probably a membrane protein, which would make it difficult to crystalize to get a structure experimentally. That's the promise of software like AlphaFold.

I feel like you focused on me leaving "level" out of that sentence, where I included it earlier in my comment. You're basically just saying that your definition of AGI is more literal than the one I use. The point of my comment was just that, up until maybe finding this subreddit, every time I saw AGI used, it had the connotation of consciousness.

It's probably splitting hairs, but it seems like people here just want to call any sufficiently good general piece of software "AGI." Yes, a really great General Artificial Intelligence will help us in many areas, but it's not what I've always understood "AGI" to be.