The author clearly has zero comprehension about the ramifications of OpenAI's technology, even if you are silly enough to pigeon hole it to just ChatGPT in particular. It has FAR broader use cases than merely writing scripts, stories, etc. Search is gonna be absolutely massive... far bigger than Word integration.

>one thing people who don't own one seem to not know this isn't as simple as a paper printer. Jamming happens, getting the thing to stick to the plate can be a nightmare, changing hotends is a thing and currently no way plug and play, and so on

Sooo... all the same sorta shit when normal printers were introduced? The process will be simplified. Quality will improve. Everything will get easier in time.

Programmable matter... interesting, but you will most certainly have far more friction points getting that workable and simple to use, without the sorta issues you raise. 3D printing just seems far more viable to me and can already create all sorts of end products, especially at industrial scale with metals and all. Even talking about building say a computer, I see 3D printing + robotics being the better path. No way programmable matter is gonna be doing that within the next 100+ years, while I believe it's not far away at all with 3D printing and robotics. Hell, 3D printing already does circuit boards and such.

Yep, it's why I don't spend nearly as much time here as I otherwise would. I can't even challenge all the ridiculously negative posts stuck in a current perspective and unable to imagine the future without getting downvoted.

Far too many anti-Capitalist Luddites and Malthusians who don't even comprehend Capitalism and technological change... the very things every futurologist should understand more than anything else. While I am greatly concerned about our future due to climate change, I am also optimistic in technology and hopeful for fusion and other solutions. Why even talk futurology if you don't even believe we have a future?? Even if you don't, futurology sb the lens that looks out at situations where we DO survive: life on other planets after ours dies, life in artificial oxygenated environments, etc.

Well, what I contemplated was the idea that this could potentially (if done at absolutely massive scale?) actually decrease flooding via massive rainfall and increase water in areas that need it most (something the article also alluded to). If only we could do that with wind someday too. Of course all of this boils down to temperature differences, global warming and such.

The article even mentions:

>The researchers said one of the more elegant features of this proposed solution is that it works like the natural water cycle.
>
>“The difference is that we can guide where the evaporated water from the ocean goes,” Dominguez said.