Interesting. When reading dystopian SciFi books, about a future where big corporations are above state governments and dominate the world I couldn't quite believe it. But such future becomes a lot more believable now.
Not sure how that was ever unbelievable to you. Governments are and have always been relics of the past. Systems that we all tolerate because removing them would be too big a hassle for most people who are simply content enough with things the way they are—and without the people these systems continue to endure.
It has always been a matter of time before a system more all-encompassing encompassed governments as well. Naive to think otherwise.
I don't want to downvote this because it's interesting, but the tone "you're an idiot if you don't already believe my extremely niche view" works against you.
It's frustrating as hell to hear this from people. I still get that glimmer of hope that people are coming around when they say it, then they just double-down on dismissing it as an overreaction.
The big tech is going to be one of the big winners from Internet Access Control. This will give them a more reliable way to link a user account to an actual human being - a link that can be monetized in a variety of ways. All kind of political regimes can use such regulations to enhance their control of the population. And the loosers are going to be the Internet users and small companies.
The unfortunate true is IAC is coming to most countries in the world, no matter how much the Hacker News audience hates it...
With $5k you have to make compromises. Which compromises you are willing to make depends on what you want to do - and so there will be different optimal setup.
The counter argument to that is what happened with horses. Since domestication every advance of human civilization lead to having more horses. Until cars were invented and improved - which eliminated overnight 90% of the number of horses used.
So the fact that in the past new technologies have created new jobs is not a guarantee that AI will create new jobs.
On top of that have a look what happened say during the industrial revolution in Britain. You'd have a village with 2000 workers producing clothes or materials to make clothes. A rich guy opens a factory in that village that employees 200 people and produces more than the whole village before that. 90% are unemployed, the 10% that work in factory have far worse working conditions. Studying graves from that time shows the height of people went down during the industrial revolution - as the conditions in the factories were far worse than what they had before. Hence the luddite movement - but as the reach people owned the mass media, the luddites were portrayed as crazy. Eventually, many years later, new better jobs did appear.
I think you're right, the many worlds interpretation makes the most sense. Unfortunately out current technology is very far from delivering any experimental confirmation or denial of any of the mainstream interpretations.
You are right, but I think there is a more positive viewpoint.
All experiments agree with the many worlds interpretation (again, better described as a quantum web interpretation), and it is the plain Occam's Razor interpretation.
No additional flourishes are needed. That is strong theoretical support. It is the default (plain reading) interpretation already.
And it is the interpretation that doesn't just conserve in one history (i.e. conservation of energy etc.), but conserves information universally.
So again, very strong specific theoretical support.
It is the conjectures about experimentally unmotivated elaborations, like "collapses", that would also break universal conservation of information, for no theoretically necessary reason, that need dramatic new evidence to prove themselves.
If I lack any optimism, it is for conjectured complications with no evidentiary support and weaker explanatory/conservation powers. In any other context, nobody would be entertaining the need for such conjectures.
The "Quantum Collapsers" are right up their with the "Flat Earthers", or solar system "Epicycle Theorists", for not being happy with accepting a working and successful theory as is. Even though their imagined shivs introduce more questions than they answer, and would dispense with its unique advantages.
What if we create a situation in a lab that can be labelled as a collapse of the wave function by interaction with a macroscopic object. Except the macroscopic object is under our control and we can reverse the collapse.
Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve? I don’t think so.
Zurek’s Decoherence and Quantum Darwinism is thought-provoking, but it’s still speculation without broad buy-in from researchers. We might need ASI to crack these mysteries — our brains weren’t built for this kind of problem.
I think the brains of our stone age ancestors were not built for relativity either. In the end the normal sequence of generations (having children and then die at some point) offers "re-trainings" of the brains. So, besides waiting/hoping for artificial intelligence, we should continue to make (and train) children. Worked great so far.
What we need are tractable experiments to test these theories.
Maybe ASI can help design these. Until it can, it will just be another voice arguing for one position over another on pretty weak arguments. Right now my money would be more on human researchers finding those experiments, but even among those few are even trying
reply