Those questions are beyond my quick Googling abilities lol. I think it's safe to say it's not a concern, though, as most places will not reach anywhere close to that temperature.

So I did a quick Google search and it said that 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Celsius) is necessary to kill soil microbes.

The hottest temperature ever recorded occurred in Death Valley at 134 degrees Fahrenheit in 1913.

So yeah, by 2030 maybe Death Valley will be reaching those temps but most of the world definitely won't. If they were, soil microbes would be the least of our worries.

I can assure you that not even the worst case predictions are that drastic. That's not to say that there aren't drastic worst case predictions out there, but none of them are predicting apocalypse. More like a world that is much less hospitable to humans (but still liveable). These impacts will be felt most extremely in developing countries, coastlines, and desert regions. But no, there won't be anything that deadly.

I'm no microbiologist, but I'm pretty sure that the amount of heat it takes to kill microbes would kill humans long before.

The issue is that our climate models are a lot more reliable than anyone's guess on when the Singularity will happen and what will happen when it does.

We as a society have a responsibility to prepare for the future and it would be extremely reckless to just put all our eggs in the Singularity basket and say "eh fuck it, the Singularity will save us".

If it turns out that the Singularity occurs before we solve climate change and then it solves it for us, then cool, that's great. But if that doesn't happen, then we want to make sure we've still been making progress.

I would love to know where you read that climate change is going to kill most of the microbial life on earth by 2030 and then we will all suffocate. I have never heard that prediction and it sounds dubious.

To be completely pedantic, we are actually in the fourth industrial revolution. There's actually a name for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Industrial_Revolution#First_Industrial_Revolution

A lot more has to go right for AGI to lead to a utopia than has to go wrong for it to lead to a dystopia. Nobody knows for sure what will happen, that's the nature of the singularity, but it's easier to imagine things going wrong.

Not to mention, it's important for bad scenarios to be discussed in order for action to be taken to mitigate them. Not that many in this sub are actually involved in AI research themselves, but in general, the more people that talk about what could go wrong, the less likely things will go wrong because more people will try to prevent those things from happening than otherwise would.

Hey, found an honest person!

Where are the options expressing uncertainty? Who here is really in a position to predict anything with confidence?

It's definitely not out of the realm of possibility that he is not acting rationally. He is a smart businessman but he is also a huge risk taker. A lot of his risks have paid off, a lot haven't.

I know what the word innovate means. It seemed like you had something in particular in mind you thought he was going to do. If not, then I'll point you to the possibility that he may want to make Twitter like WeChat.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/05/elon-musks-twitter-plans-may-take-inspiration-from-chinese-super-apps.html

What do you mean by innovate?

We've known he has wanted to make his own social media to compete with Twitter for a while. To accomplish this he decided to just buy Twitter and turn it into his desired social media. Basically buying out the competition.

This is a very common practice, the difference is that instead of it being a big company buying out a small company, it's a billionaire buying out a big company. Never before possible until recently with the wealth of billionaires ballooning to insane heights.

For sure there is. It's just, sometimes the alleged associations get a little bit "out there".

Resist the temptation to make everything in the world about "xyz topic of interest". I see this a lot in certain subreddits that revolve around something members see as revolutionary. For example, r/superstonk members thinking that everything in the world is related to a conspiracy to suppress GME.

So no, he's not secretly firing people because of the "coming AI takeover", whatever that means.

He overspent on Twitter and is trying to cut costs. Elon Musk is infamous for overworking his employees, so it seems he thinks he can fire half of them and then just have the other half work twice as much. That of course isn't going to work, but he will discover that the hard way.

A great number of people in this sub seem to be colossally unhappy with their lives and betting on the singularity as "salvation". I get it, but that type of mindset is dangerous when it comes to what we are dealing with. Luckily, I'd wager that most people in this sub have nothing to do with AI research themselves and thus won't be the ones making the tough ethical decisions that could impact billions.

The whole point of the singularity is that we cannot predict what comes after it. Scientists aren't going to consider an unpredictable event in their predictions about the heat death of the universe.

Guess the tinfoil hat people were not wrong, just early.

No way for us to know without a category for teens lmao.

Delete this and repost it with teens. I guarantee they are the largest age group.

Exactly what I am referring to. My bad, quadratic is what I meant.

>where is your proof that it can't do more than 2 minutes for make a video

....I read the actual research paper...that's how I know. Only one of them can do minutes. The other two can only do seconds at the moment.

For Imagen Video:

>Imagen Video scales from prior
>
>work of 64-frame 128×128 videos at 24 frames per second to 128 frame 1280×768 high-definition

video at 24 frames per second.

128 frames/24 frames per second is a 5 second video.

For Meta

>Given input text x translated by the prior P into
>
>an image embedding, and a desired frame rate f ps, the decoder Dt generates 16 64 × 64 frames,
>
>which are then interpolated to a higher frame rate by ↑F , and increased in resolution to 256 × 256
>
>by SRt
>
>l
>
>and 768 × 768 by SRh, resulting in a high-spatiotemporal-resolution generated video yˆ.

16 frames which they interpolate between to create a few second video.

And then Phenaki, which can generate the longest at a few minutes.

>Generate temporally coherent and diverse videos conditioned on open domain prompts even
>
>when the prompt is a new composition of concepts (Fig. 3). The videos can be long (minutes)
>
>even though the model is trained on 1.4 seconds videos (at 8 fps).

​

>Even if compute intensive you could do a film with it.

...You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. I would suggesting doing some reading on the current state of the tech and also read the actual research papers.

No you can't because this can only generate videos that are minutes long. A movie is by definition 90 minutes or longer. And we are clearly talking about coherent film productions, not something that spans the length of a movie.

If we are changing the definition to something that spans 90 minutes and is motion picture, but could include incoherent dribble, then sure, that will happen soon. In fact, you can already do that with batch processing. Nobody would call that a movie though.

And as someone who has a better understanding of the current state of technology, I am telling you that what happened this year was predictable based on where the technology was last year. Text to full length coherent movie is not possible next year based on the state of technology this year, unless we have a major breakthrough. You're basically predicting based on feelings. Feelings don't cut it. Sorry.

I know. I said isn't out. As in its not publicly available yet. And it's very unsophisticated. Like I said.