1. you are 17-18, so your perspective is extremely skewed
2. there's been consistent, although slow and linear, growth in life extension, 90% of humans who ever lived died before they were 40
3. people who are working in Life extension research are trying to extend healthy life, meaning keeping people fit and active into their 70's and 80's this has had massive breakthroughs recently
4. anecdotally, if you look at celebrities, they have aged extremely well. 40 is the new 30 and 50 is the new 40. This might not resonate with you because of your age, but I remember when I was a kid, most people over 40 looked aged, now even 50 yr olds look fit and healthy.
5. AI is taking us further with being able to solve protein folding and soon many other issues.

I agree completely, whatever the reason for the biases of the AI, it needs to be thoroughly researched to remove those biases, but the point of the article is to trigger people by saying "we have no idea what these AI are thinking, but they are racist!" And that's completely false.

Ok I see where you're coming from now, and I think it's a bit of both, computation is more centralised than they expected (let's be honest, computation will always be cheaper in a massive data center) and also they were early as a result of that. We are constantly seeing new streams of data in areas we didn't realize we wanted data from, therefore I believe this trend of increased computation will continue, but the majority of our computation will always be done in massive data centers.

I do feel you are splitting hairs a little here, sure kurzweil and kakus prediction of 2022 isn't exactly how they thought it would be, but the level of computation and smart devices we have compared to 30 years ago is mind boggling.

Bullshit click bait article, designed to trigger outrage from people not familiar with the subject. AI algorithms are not "black boxes" its just impossible to accurately determine the weighted percentages ascribed to each artificial neuron in a deep neural network. It's like asking how many bicycles are being ridden at this exact second in time in the entire world. Not only is it a pointless question, the answer is changing every split second.

The article alludes to the discrepancy in facial recognition software working on black people, arguably it could be that the training data is biased, and that should be rectified, but it also could be as simple as darker colours reflect less light, and so facial patterns are more difficult to measure on darker skin. But that doesn't work as well for click bait.

Singularity confirmed

Job losses I'd give 3-4 years before we start seeing serious problems, but it will be an ongoing issue from now.

Technology will phase in as it always has, but specifically full drive vr, I'm guessing 15-20 years, reason being is that it requires preliminary technology that is still in development such as much better quality bci's, better understanding of the brain and where all of our data inputs for the brain are. Full drive vr and mind uploading will be within a few years of each other. Having said that, you might get a more basic version in around 5-10 years that is very close.

UBI I'm guessing 5-7 years following on from the mass unemployment, its kind of slowly coming in, covid payments, here in the UK the government just gave us a bunch of cash towards our energy bills, so governments are aware of what's coming and have proven they are ready for UBI, but it will require much more automation to make sure inflation from UBI does not outpace the deflation of increased automation.

1. start a business Solving multiple problems required for running a successful business requires AGI, so running a business in almost any field, will be productive while we still have scarcity. However people will be utilising narrow AI to do more, so you will need be able to take advantage of that in order to stay competitive.

2. specialist manual work Plumber, electrician, ect. I think these types of jobs will be solved before AGI but still 10-15 years down the line

3. personalized service jobs This area will suffer massive displacement very quickly, due to the tools available allowing people in this area to get a lot more done in the same amount of time. However if you position your self correctly, party planner, personal shopper, carer for elderly or people with disabilities, you can have a successful career.

It's very difficult to predict, but I think anything that can be broken up into specific tasks that can be completed by AI is likely to disappear very quickly.

Yea definitely, if we had the production capabilities to soak up the demand, inflation would not have been an issue.

If anything, this cost of living crisis most of the world is suffering through right now, gives people an idea of some short term pain we might have to experience before post scarcity. Our leaders are completely reactionary, covid hit and they gave everyone free money and are now dealing with the fallout after the fact. The same will happen as more and more people are displaced due to automation.

That's how capitalism works, if you have a competitive advantage over the competition, you will grow much faster than them.

The cool thing is that big tech is developing these tools and they become available to smaller companies and individuals for a fraction of the cost to develop in a short period of time, allowing anyone to become competitive.

Yes very much so. There's already technology that has been created that will be massively disruptive, its just not available yet.

There's definitely a perspective that the productivity created by these technologies will create more jobs in the long term. we tend to be a species that utilizes all resources, so I'm betting on a lot more personalized services type jobs that require a human, until total post scarcity, Im just not sure there won't be some pain in the short term.

Large language models for starters, they are making it so if you want something all you need to do is ask an AI, this will have an effect on programming jobs, customer service jobs, marketing, ect. Have you seen what people are doing with stable diffusion? 2d and 3d artist's will take a hit, every day there's a new breakthrough in AI it seems, which is amazing, but to think it won't be disruptive or cause job losses, your not looking at the bigger picture.

There's a lot more disruptive technology than Tesla bot coming in around 2 years.

Protest and activism.

If businesses are getting rid of jobs due to automation, the productivity is still there, meaning there's enough productivity for you to be looked after. It's up to governments to put scheme's in place in order to protect people.

We aren't quite there yet, but I can see a lot of technology that will cause mass unemployment in about 2-3 years

You are bang on the money.

To assume technological progress is going to stop or significantly slow is to deny all recorded history.

These models might not be perfect right now, but give them 12 months and see where they are

Yes very interesting, it makes complete sense, if time is just another dimension like width, height and depth, causality might just be our way of making sense of it from an evolutionary perspective.

Yes I've read up on it. I mentioned further down quantum world might be probability based but our macro world, atleast from our perspective, seems like it's based on causality. Could be wrong I suppose, but it seems reasonable for this analogy

Ooh good point, I think there's a huge discussion to be had on probabilistic Vs causal based universe, however it does seem like at the sub atomic scale atleast, the universe exists as a probability. But at this macro scale, probability matters less than causality

Umm, yes it's possible, intact its necessary for life. Michio kaku described the rybosome as a molecular assembler.

So much comes from molecular assemblers, but so much comes before them also. The world will be a completely different place long before we have molecular assemblers and probably are post scarcity before hand.

Shopping and restaurants will have the same place that they have today, more of a social interaction. we can get most things online cheaper these days so the high street has become more about the experience, that won't change much I don't think.

It depends, i might not have anything in common with it, in which case there's no incentive to be friends.

On the flip side, it might be an AI specifically built to be interested in everything I'm interested in, to be just human enough to be interesting to me, and have goals that I can offer reasonable assistance in so as not to feel like I'm wasting it's time as true friendship is about reciprocation. That would be an AI I can really be emotionally invested with.

We live in a causality based universe, which means everything about us, our bodies and minds is mechanistic in origin. We are simply really intelligent biomechanical robots. If you can make a robot with human intelligence and human emotions, of course you can be friends with it.

While I agree with what your saying, I think your example is lacking slightly. To consider food we are eating as conscious, could mean many things, but I'm assuming you're anthropomorphising the food to fear and not want to be eaten, and it makes sense that would not be the kind of consciousness food would have. Either way, I still agree, it doesn't benefit us to assume anything is conscious until it gives us a reason to think so

How can you tell animals are sentient? Personally I don't know enough about consciousness to make either of those calls. Are trees sentient? What about stones? What about individual atoms?

I find it fascinating that people can judge this with such authority because they equate consciousness with agency, but if we can imagine a system of agency without consciousness, can it be possible for consciousness without agency? Can you prove your personal consciousness is not just the result of a network of smaller consciousness of individual neurons, which is in turn a network of consciousness of individual atoms which is a network of consciousness of subatomic particles?

Seems silly, but it's impossible to prove one way or the other. We have no idea what consciousness is so I think it represents extreme hubris, and is potentially dangerous to think something can't be conscious, just because it doesn't seem conscious.

Bold of you to assume that considering our lack of understanding of consciousness. How do you know cockroaches are conscious, and how do you know current AI isn't?

God created the universe, the universe created man, man created AI, AI created ASI, ASI reversed entropy, ASI became god....