That shows the dominance of the financial market and the economic power over the structures of society. We find completely normal hundreds of billions be redirected to the owners of the capital but we would find an anomaly to think of a technological project that could bring real progress and costed that much.
>Grass fed beef does not add to Climate change, as all bio-emissions are bound in a circle. Unlike typical mass production which is importing feed from far abroad, often burning a good chunk of rainforest in the process on doing so.
There are many studies that show that beef, grass fed or not, add to Climate change.
The grass fed meme crowd thinks they are saving the rainforest by not eating beef fed with soy from monocultures in Latin America but conveniently forget that in order to feed the whole world with grass fed animals you would need more land than the world can provide. Much of the amazon is being cut down to create pastures for cattle. It's a complete tragedy.
>Beef cattle use nearly 60% of the world’s agricultural land but account for less than 2% of global calories and 5% of global protein consumed.
I think that patents should only be enforceable if there is a commercialy product or service using it in the interval of maybe 5 years since the patent was registered. People making money by buying patents and suing companies is downright evil.
Go is played in a a bigger board though and has this kind of recursive nature where a subset of a go game is also a go game while chess is more ad-hoc.
>I don't know about your example, animal carcasses vary a bunch and it would have to be great at not leaving any meat wasted.
Cutting meat in practice is an activity that's more complex than it looks and for sure carcasses vary a lot, but even taking in account all their variation they still follow a pattern. At some point I'm sure we'll have robotic AI arms that will be trainable just like chatGPT is, so after being trained by a profession with thousands and thousands of hours, the hypotetical intelligent robotic arm eventually learns to do the job just fine 99.99% of the time and that's enough.
I think that at some point AI will enter the domain of repetitive physical jobs, like for example an experienced butcher will train an AI arm that eventually will learn to slice meat correctly since that's an activity that normally works with a reasonably standardized product(the animal carcass).
Keeping that in mind, honestly for me it's hard not to be very skeptical that it would make any economic sense in the next many decades to have an expensive humanoid robot performing tasks with a very low aggregated value like moving boxes one by one. Just because it's a robot performing an economic activity it doesn't necessarily mean it will be productive or competitive.
>We are rapidly approaching an inflection point where the rules of capitalism don't work anymore. The road bifurcates there and I'm not sure that we are capable of getting the good ending.
What are you talking about exactly? Can you elaborate?
>According to our best current model, no, the laser beam will never stop passing by matter, of approximately the same average density as the matter we can see.
I didn't understand this part, why would the laser beam would never stop passing by matter? Because of the metric expansion of the universe? Isn't it reasonable to assume that there is a skirt of the universe where matter keeps expanding into nothingness?
As I understand it, before the big bang the whole observable universe was contained in a small sphere and then it started to expand metrically. Is this interpretation correct?
Another thing: suppose I point a laser beam to the space and by chance this laser beam never finds any kind of matter in its way, where is this laser going to? To an infinite void? Is it correct to say that stars radiate energy to the infinite then?
I used to live in a subtropical region when I was a child in the 90s and it's pretty remarkable how hot the winters are today over there. That experience alone taught me that no way the climate change is not real. It's a bit like with the economy, you feel something is pretty wrong, but a lot of people for one reason or another will deny and try to brush it off, then after many years you get to see articles about how tough times have been in the last X years.
Once I read somewhere that people overestimate the impact of new technologies in the short term and underestimate it in the long term.
My interpretation is that right now we're on the top of AI euphoria wave. It was the same thing some time ago with crypto. We would hear a lot of theories about how a system based in objective microcontracts would make the subjective and inefficient governments of today obsolete.
We still don't know the true impact that the new LLM models will have over the economy, but what we know is that a lot of people is making a lot of money by being excessively optimistic with the prospects. Honestly I think that the practical impacts of LLMs won't be nowhere near to what the enthusiasts are preaching. In more 3-4 years the novelty will fade and then we will be ready to go to the next hype.
And the fentanyl epidemic is just a symptom, the underlying cause is something else. And of course it's much easier to talk about the chemical structure of molecules or about evil cartels than to face the real social problems that make people get addicted.
What I find it funny about this LLM euphoria is that people seem to have forgotten the theoretical limits of what turing machines can do.
Program equivalence, for instance, hits the wall of the halting problem. Yet somehow people think that it's just a matter of time before an AI that can solve the problem of giving you a mathematically equivalent code to an existing code.
I pointed out a structural issue of the modern world and you came up with a pointless counterpoint about being born in an unfavourable condition in the past.