you'll probably get the best description from chatgpt

Because every story needs conflict, and most stories about AI are about conflicts with AI.

Honestly it's pretty easy.
1 - don't damage people

2 - prevent damage to people

3 - always assume people are dumb and unethical

How long really though. The general trend is that data driven occupations are going to be first to go. The guy who refurbishes robots will be employed much longer.

Honestly I think therapist is one of the first on the chopping block. I think automation is the ONLY way to promote better habits effectively.

You'd be better off as sex worker. They'll still be cheaper than a sex-bot for awhile.

Easy peasy. Just launch some orbital solar powered lasers.

Facebook's metaverse sucks. Too many barriers, not enough advantages. If AR/VR is easy, lightweight, then it'll take off. Zuckerberg is trying to force things before they are ready.

Impregnating wood with MOFs to bind the CO2. They want to utilize MOFs to produce hydrogen. Building a house out of them would be ridiculous.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360319921042385

Using MOF (Metal Organic Framework) to bind it. Scaling this would be very expensive. Hydrogen fuel production uses MOFs, building a house out of them economically would be quite the feat.

There have been significant advances in advanced wood materials. Treated and compressed wood can now get as strong as kevlar and steel.

I wonder how you can assign a probability to an unprecedented situation. It's not like conditional probability can predict events that have no meaningful input data.

Couldn't mechanical disruption lead to metastasized cancer?

Likely 400% more cancer by weight too.

Doesn't everybody fry their potatoes at 10^9 K?

I can ask the AI for the sources. I've been able to validate sources by querying for some.

I love just imagining how much energy is involved in an interaction like this.

There still is 'junk' DNA, but large sections of a chromosome is structural. Allows for histone binding and conformational changes. This isn't new or groundbreaking. This paper is defining properties for classifying and labeling functional regions that will predict these changes.

Living organisms also error correct most single base changes. Also if a mutation is non-viable that eliminates many types of mutations from being reproduced.

There is no need for a mathematical information theory to rationalize mutation rates because natural selection has already.

This paper is an extension of Maxwell's Demon thought experiment.

The vast majority of energy use globally is for travel, food, heating and electricity. We can cut down on travel, even food and electricity, hard to do for heating.

The most significant things you can do is stop eating meat, stop going on vacations, bike to work. Everything else is trivial.

Like usual, they don't even mention recycling batteries. What is the carbon cost associated with recycling old batteries into new ones? Not sure because it isn't at an industrial scale. Yet entirely dismissed by articles like this.

Did the article address mutli-dwelling infrastructure? The effects of exploding mineral demand?

I know the energy economics of batteries and EVs, and I know the recycling costs of the battery lifecycle put a huge '?' on the real costs.

These hard limits imposed so early are going to be reversed. Businesses are going to fail to properly adapt, government funded services are to fail to properly adapt, private individuals aren't going to be able to afford to adapt.

If you think inflation is bad now, just wait until costs across all society run up a vertical wall.

Electric vehicles are the future, no doubt. The problem is ham-fisting them into society will create distortions in the market, and it'll cost much more than we can estimate today.

Battery temperature control.

I don't think you've even addressed a single argument he brought up. How does one charge an electric car on a 120V 15A circuit that is available to people who live in condos and apartments?

How about full lifecycle of a battery? There is no infrastructure in place to recycle enough batteries, let alone building the batteries to begin with. It would require mining completely 80% of all known lithium sources, even the sources that we can't refine yet just to replace the vehicles we have.

How about cost? How many people can afford a new vehicle? Basically only the 1%. The 99% will be told by the 1% to eat cake.

Also how do you "make people charge them every day at peak times"? You plan on having a special police force going around ensuring people are following your orders? Don't you think that sounds a bit oblivious to reality? Not just idealistic oblivious, like childish 'don't understand basic reality' oblivious.

Always remember who is holding the leashes. Money is the source of all evil

Helion's cycle is really cool. It's about as futuristic and surprisingly elegant as it gets. I really hope that one works out, like a reactor you'd find on a starship or something.

Can't compare preproduction costs to mass production lines. As scale and time progress costs approach material input costs. The number of patents and technology involved will keep things expensive for the first decade max. Newer models will push down older ones. It'll likely get to the point that people will be dumping obsolete robots in the recycling bin.

People make 50-150,000K a year. A robot costs are initial cost, energy costs, and repair costs. I would doubt a largely plastic domestic robot would cost more than the yearly wage of a person to build.