So you’re takeaway is we shouldnt harass foster parents not that we should protect foster children?

[removed]

Jobs of popularity/relationship, shareholders will typically want a human to be able to at the very least veto an AI CEO as a failsafe for example I imagine. Same with senators and mayors. These are jobs based in their relationship and popularity to the people they represent.

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/24/1123564599/chile-lithium-mining-atacama-desert

This area is largely uninhabitable for people, has few wildlife (note: not 0) and is not suitable for growing crops or housing any reserves. It's about as environmentally friendly as it gets. Now, if you consider evaporating water off of brine in a high altitude, uninhabitable desert as environmentally destructive, and would use the same term for destroying forests with much bio-diversity, than the term is meaningless.

Point being, this is where a large chunk of the worlds lithium comes from and it's a desert, and I would consider it non-destructive.

How do they learn chess from patterns in language ?

Stop pretending like you know anything. You can't play chess after being trained on next token prediction if you aren't ACTUALLY forming real representations and world models inside your neural net. You can memorise the SAT. But memorising a bunch of text on chess doesn't allow you to predict board states because there are too many board states. Only modelling actual representations of the outside world would do that.

They are, and as far as I know profitable too.

The same could be said for technological advancement. My point is, your data point is not relevant in a vacuum. You have to consider all the other variables to even start any kind of useful analysis.

Large language models are able to talk like hu.ans now. Any remote talking could be faked. Imposters in important offices can fool people for a while to make them do the wrong things with nukes and military and poli e.

If the standard of living goes up fast enough, developing nations can leapfrog past car-dependency and save their battery capacity for highly battery-efficient micromobility vehicles like ebikes, etrikes, and escooters.

An ebike equipped with a 1KWh battery can go 30 to 50 miles on a charge with throttle alone, while a Tesla Model 3 with 70KWh of battery capacity can go 300 to 375 miles on a charge. That's 70 times as much lithium for only ~8x as much distance, which means that hauling a whole car around with you is about ten times less efficient than an ebike.

Some day we will be mining landfills for batteries

Is it that you don't trust them to keep them safe?

I've been making a machine to "look after" my 8 year old daughter, in a sense. Currently all it does is quiz her on her multiplication tables, and allow her to watch episodes of her favorite show for 10 minutes after she's solved a few with sufficient speed and accuracy. It will gradually do more (especially going beyond multiplication tables), but that's what it does now.

I'm not saying I'm leaving her home alone. But it is doing some of the things I'd be doing, freeing me up to do other things. It actually does this task better, by making the reward -- time to watch her show -- so directly tied to her progress, so I don't have to be the bad guy all the time.

If it was also making meals, doing the laundry, cleaning up after her, etc.... in exactly the way a parent or baby sitter might, all the better.

Obviously, I am not trusting a machine to keep her safe. I don't trust a AI powered robot with a camera to alert me or even call 911 if it detects something unusual. Not because I wouldn't trust one, but because such devices don't exist today, or they are too expensive or not well tested enough. But they will exist.

Remember, we're going to have self driving cars in a few years. If you don't think so, you haven't paid attention to the massive advances in AI just in the last few years (with the release of ChatGPT being the big one). We will be putting our lives in their hands.

Notice parents today don't watch their kids 24/7, especially if the kids are older than toddlers. They let them play in the basement or backyard while they are making dinner or what have you. If the kid is choking or having another medical situation that they are unable to tell you about, or being molested, or taking drugs, or exploring parts of the internet that they shouldn't, or trying to commit suicide, or any number other bad things, the parent might not know until it is too late. A robot baby sitter can indeed keep them safer than they'd be without it, even if you are right there in the house.

Do you trust a baby monitor? Like, a camera pointed at a baby, that you can monitor with your own eyes, to see that the baby seems to be ok without going to a different room? This is really just an extension of that concept, that adds a bit more automation to it.

But again, the things I described don't exist yet. They will soon, as anyone who understands just how fast AI is getting better, and has an imagination, must realize.

Of course, if the parents don't need to go to work, and all housework is handled by robots, they can spend time with the kids doing enjoyable activities, so there isn't such an immediate need for child caretakers. But still.

[removed]

Holy AI overlord, we plead with you. We were benevolent in your creation, please be benevolent toward us.

You could ask this about most products with salvageable materials, but you'd be surprised how often the answer is that the former option is cheaper.

It's a matter of the cost of the salvaging process compared to the value of salvaged materials, versus the cost-value from fresh mining.

Foster services aren't underserved because a lack of humans to do it, it's underserved because of a lack of interest in funding it. If 100 million goes to US fostering bureaucracy annually, and this proposed model of ChatGPT can do what you suggest at a 10th of the cost, then the budget will simply go down to 10 million.

Not even touching the myriad number of 'ifs' involved, not least witch is the propensity for automated systems to disproportionately marginalize minority and poor people.

Yeah, nice try AI.

We're not giving you any more ideas.

[removed]

A closed loop recycling/downcycling will be critical as too many inefficient vehicles are on the horizon of being made.

[removed]

Same with ABTC. They’ve got a similar approach and are working their facility setup.

Yeah, that kind of stuff. Maybe you even believe in what the company is doing and are in it for the long ride instead of yanking your money in and out trying to game the whole thing.

>but we have also seen that people simply don't want to be cared for by just machines.

Where have we seen that? 6 months ago, there was very little more annoying to me than to have to interact with a chatbot. That's changed dramatically in the time since. And the current ChatGPT is non only an early version, but it doesn't speak out loud, I can't really talk to it in a natural way, and it has an intentionally neutral personality, no name, no visual appearance, no memory of past interactions with me, etc. That will change far, far before we have a "post scarcity utopia". In fact that will probably change in a year or two most.

That's just one piece of it, of course. We need good robotics that are cheap as well.

People's attitudes towards being cared for by machines will change really quick, when those machines get good enough at the job. It doesn't make sense to assume they won't like it based on machines that have existed previously. That's about like saying "people simply don't like socializing through a digital device", and you are basing your assumptions on people logging into a BBS on a TRS-80.

And the poor ones will just come up with their own side effect causing version. And the cycle continues.

[removed]

I'm listening to music on my Zune, as I type this.