You are oversimplifying.

A calculator can not accurately predict a complex pattern. The more complex the pattern the more complex the algorithm would need to be, and that complexity is what we call intelligence.

Think it through carefully - surely you would need to be very intelligent to generate coherent and on-topic text.

ChatGPT is an AI like every other AI currently in use. Is it an AGI - definitely not.

How its trained is simple, but the result is obviously very sophisticated - it takes a huge amount of intelligence to accurately predict the next word in a sensible and on-topic way.

Yes, I like your idea.

Google has already done that and it works really well, but a bit slowly. There is no reason the technology can not improve with time.

https://say-can.github.io/

https://youtu.be/ysFav0b472w

I think this idea is new and pretty cool however.

> Without getting into details like neural networks, transformer, and whatnot,** I figure we can use the same tech to be able to predict the next physical movement a robot does.** So if you were to construct a robot that looks like a human and has the same abilities, i.e it can rotate and extend its limbs the same way, then given enough data it could learn to move like a human the same way ChatGPT can talk like a human.

> The input for this would be a video footage and software that can identify limb movements. An easy way start would be to tape a factory line where human workers do some kind of repetitive movements. Next thing you know, we could have robots doing dishes and mopping the floor! Add ChatGPT-like abilities and it will be able to talk as well.

It would be like physical intelligence.

You wont have to worry about that, as you would change over time. You 1000 years in the future would be a very different from you now, as you are different from how you were 10 years ago.

> Death gives life meaning.

There is a theory that people only say this because they know they will die, and if they actually had the option of immortality, they would grab it with both hands and feet.

The truth is that life has no meaning, and you are just here to enjoy the ride. If you enjoy the ride you may want to stay on a bit longer.

> Immortality is infinite suffering

You always have the option of checking out.

It is not right that we will merge into a single entity. We have no idea what will happen. One thing that is certain is that we will definitely die without the singularity, and the singularity actually gives us a shot at immortality.

Its probably this deleted post.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/10bhar2/will_we_all_be_famous_in_the_future/

> Step 1 is super hard to achieve and the main reason for it is, that you really need to take a HUGE amount of factors into account when driving. It requires much more than AI can deliver right now.

But may be not for too long in the future.

Isn't he just describing what an exponential graph looks like?

Plastic will not decompose to methane. And the reason not to convert it to something else is that that process will release its embedded co2 into the atmosphere.

Which would be best achieved by leaving that CO2 locked up in plastic in the landfill, not to convert the plastic back into fuel to be burnt.

When talking about plastic, are they not the perfect carbon capture vehicle, since they don't decompose?

> This allows us to de-carbonize every sector still using fossil fuels without them needing to spend years we don't have developing and implementing greener versions of their own.

The big issue is the above last paragraph - it allows existing fossil fuel using industries to continue as before, and likely use a mix of a small amount of synth gas and a large amount of fossil fuel, and pretend they are solving the problem, instead of doing the hard work of moving to a new process which does not use fossil fuel at all

Them maybe wait 10 years till the charging network catches up? Most people live in single family homes suitable for chargers.

Americans have no idea how good they have it energy-wise.

Actually around 60% of people have off-road parking.

https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/parking-review/news/66621/a-third-of-uk-homeowners-don-t-have-a-driveway-or-garage-to-install-a-home-chargepoint/

1/3 don't, so conversely 2/3 do.

So there is room to rise from about 1% of cars being EVs to 60%, which would take a decade, before this becomes a roadblock. Enough time to install chargers in every lamp post.

And install solar, since electricity prices are so high, payback is very quick.

> AA's analysis also mentioned that the cheapest way to recharge an electric car is to plug it in at home, which because of the government's energy price cap, could bring down the cost per mile to as low as 7.64 pence.

Good thing most charging is done at home then, right?

Replacement is obviously the most secure.

See, if you kill 3/4 of the people, but keep your property intact, you can have a new cycle of growth where you end up even richer!