> It should be impossible to survive from saved money? Wouldn't that mean that everybody has to work until they die?
Come on, it depends on the duration, and it is long stretch from parent poster's thought to your "cannot live of saved money" for some time (though would claim, the states that have/had this guaranteed by the state had it more right anyway, basic survivability for retire time should not depend on savings in modern society, only luxury).
I mean the opposite, what you seem to want, that you can live indefinitely off a certain amount of saved money, we all know cannot be similarly true for everybody?
> "Our mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity."
Ahhh now I get that, all humanity, exclude noone :D
> pointed to Altman’s aggressive fundraising efforts for a chips venture with autocratic regimes in the Middle East, which raised concerns about the use of AI to facilitate state surveillance and human rights abuses.
Indeed, the hologram in the meeting was just the "powerpoint slide", abstract to convey the idea: death star, trench, boom. Noone stood up and went studying it like a map, that was not its purpose at all.
Yes, and I find multiple of its assumptions if not unreasonable at least with a huge flexibility that would void it, as have been discussed since it being stated and as one can even read on Wikipedia? There are dozens of similar feasible argumentations that can unparadox it..
Nope, I gave my opinion with probabilities I feel reasonable, given our current understanding of physics and the limits imposed - and I didn't exclude anything. So what is yours? You are an expert and certainly know they invented some way of FTL travel? Otherwise, see..
> we don’t see aliens because they don’t exist, or we don’t see them because they are here already
imo most likely is they exist, but space is just so unimaginable huge, and also Aliens can at most go close to lightspeed. They didn't beat physics nor invented portals / wormholes?
> They should be here already.
Least likely for me out of the three options.. just our tinfoil hat love :)
Current ones still 10-20k, some advances and mass production will lower that further. And there are very different LIDARs (frequency, resolution, range!!), the ones in Smartphones and other small devices work very different.. maybe as different as the ultrasonic sensors in your car vs medical ultrasonic (beware, bad comparison actually).
> I don’t wanna say many words about prison and I have no great desire remembering this. It was slave labor at a chemical factory where my health was significantly ruined and where I 24/7 had a great time in a company of drug dealers, thieves, and killers..
You complain about abbreviation of omnipresent keywords, but then allow function only two more letters? :D I think proofs well, syntax is overrated and it is all opinionated taste..
That's also an opinion and you are stretching the art comparison quite much, 24fps is a standard and limitation and photo/film most often is to capture some reality and not so much an interpretation of someone else's view in Monet sense? Most often the cinematic art part comes in on other dimensions, even if for some few it is those 24fps and other limitations.
Come on, it depends on the duration, and it is long stretch from parent poster's thought to your "cannot live of saved money" for some time (though would claim, the states that have/had this guaranteed by the state had it more right anyway, basic survivability for retire time should not depend on savings in modern society, only luxury).
I mean the opposite, what you seem to want, that you can live indefinitely off a certain amount of saved money, we all know cannot be similarly true for everybody?