And they will be the first to take/afford longevity treatments that cure l/prevent all illnesses, right? There's still people at the top.

Ok. Then capitalism will remain through transformative AI, only the powerful and rich will have access to AGI and later ASI. And they can go live in their mystical future, the rest of us can start from scratch or die.

I get it, you like capitalism.

My idea here is that a medical treatment that encourages longevity and cures physical and mental illnesses could essentially cure the traits of these people. So nobody would fill that void if nobody exhibits those traits.

But I agree the entire system is the problem, but it's just a solution to one problem, hypothetically.

They might not "want" to, it'd be a side effect of a cure-all longevity treatment (in my scenario).

But laser focus and hard work doesn't mean extraordinary success. It requires a lot of luck, and unethical practices. It's the unethical part that needs cured.

Well I mean "they" referring specifically to the ones I'm talking about.

But I don't think convincing people to take a cure all, be healthy, live longer medication would be difficult. Aleast not for many wealthy people, I'm sure there will be anti-longevity people.

I just wonder if that medical breakthrough happened, if curing this behaviour in politicians and wealthy people would be a welcomed side effect.

I hope so!

That's definitely a concern, but as I understand it countries like China aren't currently capable of producing the GPU's required for large transformers on their own.

But one concern doesn't mean other concerns should be on the back burner. A medical breakthrough capable of curing all, would definitely shake the world for the better.

Longevity and health? It wouldn't be billed as something that destroys capitalism, it would be such a health benefit both physically and mentally.

I don't know who would actually need convincing to cure all ailments, right?

I'm not down voting anyone here, fyi.

But I know what I'm describing is capitalism, I wasn't claiming it isn't. But I'm talking about the transition from it, toward a more sustainable system before AI becomes something only the "haves" get while the "have nots" fall into total poverty.

Well capitalism strongly encourages economic powers to influence political powers. So much so, that to call what we have now as "decent" would be a stretch.

The free market only works because it's the best option we have, or at least that we came up with. And there's no opt out, so those of us at the bottom are kind of stuck being pushed further and further down. I would call our current system a system with no choice, at least for almost everyone.

Capitalism won't work forever, or even much longer most likely. Well, not if we're assuming a transformative AI is a matter of years away.

It's not always the hoarding part that's specifically sociopathic. It's how they hoard and maintain/grow it, and how they got there in the first place.

Paying low wages, unethical practices, all that sort of thing. But I'd say it isn't natural to have so much when others have so little. Maybe a lot of people do that, but normal/average doesn't equal healthy.

I don't look forward to having to use that to define the ultra wealthy.. What a world.

I agree, but if the rich get things first, they could be "model" humans first. And that could inspire them to share.

I agree they only exist because of how the world operates. The difficult part is reversing how the world operates. And it just had occurred to me, the hardest solution may be the simplest. Changing billionaires minds, rather than legislation.

Its a matter of time until healthcare takes off in ways we thought were sci-fi. We're also dangerously close to critical unemployment when a few more narrow AI are released that out compete humans in significant sectors.

Things like open ai codex, it doesn't have to replace programmers, but if you increase programmers efficiency by even small percents it has a cascading effect across all sectors of IT.

>Rich people don't "hoard" wealth. They invest. When someone says "Jeff Bezos has $200 billion" this doesn't mean he's sitting in a money bin with 200 billion dollar banknotes.

Haha, yes I'm well aware of how that works. But they simply use their stocks as collateral to obtain essentially unlimited cash flow through loans anyway.

But that's not even the point, I'll try and explain it better. They hoard wealth in terms of general wealth, power, value, influence. They have a need to perpetually obtain more and more market share. They have an obsession to do whatever it takes to be on top of everyone around them.

If a diagnostic AI existed, and balanced that obsessive trait, then the market share from the companies could be used to fuel prosperity for all, instead of prosperity for some. If they were freed from those traits, they could focus on betterment for others.

This would be the beginning of the end for capitalism. If suddenly Walmart started offering everyone profit shares in the form of thousands of dollars worth of gift cards every year for free, for example. Do you think people would still go use amazon? Maybe here and there, but I would probably do all of my business at Walmart.

That's just a simple, dumb example. It'd be a transition from capitalism to whatever proves superior in an unemployed world with AI doing the heavy lifting.

I agree we don't need billionaires, but they exist and they have a desire to hoard their money and power.

Can that desire just be leveled out? It must be some mental illness they have, and I'm sure plenty of common folk have it too, just without the luck.

I think that would be further in the future than curing things we suffer from now. And if cures come before modifications like that, then capitalism would probably already be gone. That's my argument anyway. A sliver of hope that CEOs grow hearts.

That's the question in the post basically. Could the system fall apart when enough people in power are cured of these traits.

It's not really a biohacking suggestion rather than say you go to a doctor, they test your blood/DNA whatever, and run it through an diagnostic AI that tells you your levels of everything, predispositions, potential precursors, and current illnesses. It then creates a custom tailored medical regime to cure, and prevent.

I honestly don't see how that won't be a thing soon, it's logical, no?

I'm not sure how far fetched it is for AI to help figure out the cause of mental illnesses and how to treat them. People would just take the medication because it would cure everything you have.

>maybe I can carry a little selfie drone

That would be pretty awesome, I have to admit. Just fire off a little thumb drive sized drone. and you can see the viewfinder through your AR glasses. I agree though, with any size screen it will definitely make a lot of current stuff useless for a lot of people. Outside of gamers or people that need a powerful CPU/GPU, there would be no point in tablets, laptops, eventually cell phones. Still wonder how they will get people to wear them all the time, but maybe by the time they become mainstream it will use a different tech. Like a projector of sorts on a thin arm that fires the image into your eye instead of looking through glasses.

>My feeling is that the next decade will be one where AI augments some workers and deskills others. Maybe some industries will be virtually eliminated.

It will definitely be a while until every job is eliminated, but I do think deskilling jobs and making each employee much more effective will leave a ton of people unemployed. People always refer to the industrial revolution and say people will retrain for new jobs. But I really don't see how that will apply here. Sure, some people will be able to get highly specialized skilled jobs, and manual labor will last for a while too. But there just won't be enough work when a lot of things just require an AI "operator" to conduct more work than a single human could on their own. It only takes like 10% (or even less) unemployment to cause a crises.

It's not like a journalist will be able to retrain to be a nanobot engineer or whatever example you want to use. I personally think this will happen quicker than people are comfortable admitting. It doesn't require 100% or even 50% of jobs to be automated, it only requires a few key sectors to lay off a lot of employees because they aren't essential for operation anymore.

Retail for example, yes there will still need to be people there in the near future, but a simple kiosk that takes an order for a pair of jeans. It can drop it through a chute in front of the customer, and they can tap to pay for it or go try it on. Yes we need the employees that stock the inventory and to help customers that need it, but that could be an easy 75% reduction in staff. That's possible today. The infrastructure isn't worth it yet, but when questions can be posed to an AI about inventory or ask for style tips from a fashion AI or can gauge your size perfectly?

The moment people prefer to deal with AI instead of a human is when this takes off.

>10 years hits kind of that boundary between near and far future enough to be pretty fuzzy.

That was my exact thinking behind the original post. Each passing year seems to make it more difficult to gauge where the next decade will go, which is exciting. But I don't know if we'll hit any life altering tech in that time. I look at each passing 5 year span as a set up for the next 5 years. I'm hoping the AR we have now comes to consumers in the next 5 years.

Do you think all devices with screens now, will be screen-less when AR is ubiquitous (if that's less than 10 years)? I think phones will be the processor and main hub for other devices. Watches will remain and get much better sensors, perhaps other sensors can be worn elsewhere to compliment them. And AR glasses will start out as a HUD device with the ability to "cast" screens. I'm not so sure I see AR glasses as a replacement to all devices, simply because of how vain humans are. Selfies would be impossible barring the use of some kind of avatar. Smart watches or bands would work great as a physical controller for AR, or gyroscopic control. Eye tracking will be important to reach that "killer app" scenario, unless brainwave reading gets super advanced quickly. I think we need some pretty significant battery advancements as well. I'll admit though, I haven't kept up with AR as much as I should, so I'm not sure exactly where we're at today.

Do you think AR is this decades most/only truly revolutionary tech? I think chat bots will hit the general public by surprise soon. Virtual assistants will be upgraded when we solve the unpredictable nature of them so they're safe to use. Safe referring to needing a disclaimer that says don't trust what it says. I think when our virtual assistants are capable to converse with and do things for us, it will really feel like the future is here.

I do think narrow AI will make big waves by 2025/6. I think that's when employment issues will start to crop up, before being a crises shortly after.

When do you think a person will land on Mars?

Your timeline is "conservative" relative to the singularity sub here. But at the same time, seems only about 5 to 10 years off from what I think the average consensus is here. I'd say I'm more in line with your timeline, though I do hope acceleration takes off a bit more. I really have a pessimistic view toward the general population and governments. I am hoping that this decade has enough revolutionary tech to require serious thought of UBI sooner than 10 years away, but I'm not holding my breath.

I can't remember correctly at this point, and in hindsight it seems so obvious, but the jump from dumb phone to smart phone; I can't recall if it was so obvious at the time. We see and hear a lot of talk about AR glasses being the obvious step, I wonder if there's some other technology that will flip that notion on its head. AR seems like an amazing idea, but the general public wearing glasses seems a lot less likely to me than carrying a large screen in their pocket. The glasses would have to either be very customizable, or very resizable after they're made. Do you have a prediction of when the first viable ones will come to market?

It's too bad my posts get deleted from this subreddit for no reason, I was hoping to keep a conversation going to get some new perspectives.

How far do you think we are from 3D printed metal that doesn't resemble cheap "cast" metals? Do you envision anything could be 3D printed? Like any material? What would a food material tube taste like haha.

Yeah that's the stuff I'm asking about. Do you think the advancements of AR will be quick enough for this to be mainstream within 10 years?

I'm actually surprised there hasn't been a buzz about improvements to our virtual assistants yet. I think that will be very soon, and will hopefully be a pretty big game changer but I have my doubts tech corporations will implement it in a very useful way. Take the current google/siri/alexa stuff. It could do a lot more. Our smart homes could be much more robust and better. But we mostly have smart bulbs, thermostats, locks, and cameras. And using voice assistants to adjust those works most of the time, but it's so basic for the average consumer.

>I think nothing will actually change very noticeably, it will be more subtle stuff

​

>3d printing is getting better, with crispr gene editing, agi, and new power sources

These sound pretty noticeable though. Relative to the singularity, maybe not, but compared to life today?

What effect will better 3D printers have? Where will CRISPR be within 10 years? What new power sources?

So what areas come first, and when, and what's the impact for each?

Example - Doctors, are we talking new drugs and treatments? Or just unemployed doctors and we still go to check ups every once in a while or if something feels off?