This feels like really arbitrary bullying to me. The sub is about speculation first and foremost. Many of the threads on this sub are unanswerable but they don't get dogpiled like this.

A person whose opinion I respect very much - who's frequently been on the conservative side, even - said that he expects costs of goods and services to begin their decline around 2029 thanks to AI and automation. My guess is that there will be a dramatic increase in quality of life for developed nations during the 2030s and developing nations during the 2040s.

You uh... realize that my post wasn't a whole lot different from yours, right? I was just meeting vitriol with vitriol.

I would also like elaboration.

Bullshit.

Dumbass. Anyone who accuses the optimists of being the only side that's patronizing has clearly not read... pretty much everything posted by self-proclaimed cynics and skeptics, in every futurism community ever, for at the bare minimum the past 11-12 years. You seem like an idiot and I'm saddened that, rather than simply being left blissfully unaware that you exist, you had to post this single stupid-ass thread to preserve the memory of your moronic ass inside my brain.

Right. This isn't anything new. The 1980s probably had more technological growth than the 1970s, for example.

Because it was. 2006 to 2012 (rise of smartphones, social media, streaming, transition of the internet from an occasionally useful tool to an addiction) was the last period of rapid change. 2012 to 2022 was a preparation period for the next period of rapid growth that began in 2022.

Yeah, I have no particular thoughts or strong feelings on nanobots (they would be great obviously but the medical revolution will happen with or without them), but the use of the word "never" makes him look like a tryhard at best and stupid at worst. Look at me I'm such a tuff skeptical badass I tell it like it iz, get bent you starry-eyed optimists holy shit I'm so fucking cool

Regulation can be functionally equivalent to hostility. Depends on what the regulations are.

I'm sure that Gary Marcus will respond the same way that the average self-proclaimed cynic and skeptic on /singularity does: "no ur wrong and dum lol"

Been on them since 2011. Didn't blunt my emotions, just gave me an emotional range beyond just negative ones.

I get tired of the 'nothing's ever worth being excited about' attitude in general when it comes to anything and everything tech-related. Every article about anything related to medicine or tech always has to end with the obligatory paragraph that goes "but we're still in the early days... scientists say it will be years if not decades before this is worth being happy or excited about..." Fuck off, just let us be happy for once in our miserable-ass lives and let us have our uplifting bit of news to temporarily relieve our desire to blow our brains out with a shotgun for about 30 minutes.

Pretty easily...?

More than just disappointing, it's outright disgusting. Change this shitty fucking world as fast as you can.

Okay... thanks.

>AGI occurs across a spectrum: from ‘error prone’, not-too smart or ‘savant’-like (sub-human reliability or intelligence or of limited scope)

This is making the definition so lenient to render it kind of meaningless, I think. Might as well say that Smarterchild was AGI for being smarter than a newborn baby. I think the "floor" for AGI should be something that's competent at almost all intellectual tasks (maybe not fully on par with humans, but competent) and is generally about as smart as a human who's at minimum on the lower end of average. (I think we'll get there during 2023-2024, plz don't kill me techno-skeptics)

No way icedrift and techno-skeptics cannot be wrong on anything ever, AGI in 2150 at EARLIEST and you're delusional if you think otherwise cuz I say so lmao

A lot of the pre-2050 crowd does include people building AI.

And the half that agrees with you counts more than the half that doesn't because reasons? I'm a delusional idiot for sharing the same opinion as a tiny, miniscule, insignificant, irrelevant, vanishingly small, barely even existent 50 percent demographic?

Weird, some super aggressive, inflammatory guy outright called me a delusional idiot for not believing AGI to take until 2050-2065 (which is, in his words, the consensus amongst almost all AI experts).

>The CEO of Rippling already came out and said that 4 is basically AGI.

I haven't heard of this... link?

Honestly, despite being a tech-optimistic myself, Luddites bother me a lot less than technoskeptics do. Luddites at least believe in the power of technology, that it's advancing rapidly and will change the world. I prefer that to the technoskeptics "lulz we'll just remain in 2006 forever and you're delusional if you think otherwise LMAO" attitude.

The article's behind a paywall; does it say when the primate trials begin? And how accurate are primate models? I heard that mouse models translate to humans less than 10 percent of the time, whereas testing on human cells does so 81-87 percent.

I was never able to beat Sans :(