effed3

13 ms·

121.
by effed3 3y ago
Yes, efficiency is not an issue, but is improving. Storage technology evolve, there are many battery technology, even better than li-ion if fully developed, and storage can be chemical, capturing co2 and making fuels with net zero CO2 pollu
122.
by effed3 3y ago
On the technical level, i think yes, there are analysis and solution. But at practical level (economic/politics) decommissioning is left to the posterity (cost rising years after years, shifting of milestone, more taxes.. and so on)
123.
by effed3 3y ago
we dont have a time machine, so seems to me the right aproach to search for maximum safety, not a relative one. No definitive solution exist even for plastic/polymers, there substances discarded are spreading the world, and the effect
124.
by effed3 3y ago
> Nuclear technology is safe enough "enough" is a point of view, is your, so ok for you, not enough for me. Fukushima was not enough safe, but again, for me. And there are many others "not enough" situations others th
125.
by effed3 3y ago
Ops, true, overall photosynthesis is low, i remembered some higher capture eff. at some wavelenghts.. (just retina photon conversion is about 50% IIRC)
126.
by effed3 3y ago
True, an overall 10% improvement is a big number, one order of magnitude is SF now. But for single technologies, more than 10% is possible, internal combustion engines vs electric, incandescent light vs led.. So reasoning on the global effi
127.
by effed3 3y ago
About this i absolutely agree.. if there is an equal amount of wisdom.
128.
by effed3 3y ago
>What does the future look like when we have 10 times as energy available? What does the future look like when we have 10 times the efficency on energy use? This is the right question/goal. Denemark (IIRC) has sometimes reached the
129.
by effed3 3y ago
All the analysis like this forget to count the cost of decommissioning the nuclear technology, reactors and fuels. Cost for end of life reactors are an order of magnitude those of contruction, and no safe definitive solution for fuel exist
130.
by effed3 3y ago
Apart the nature of this field, this aproach simply displace the problem of the consciousness from the brain to the field, adding a complication, as now we have a problem more: the tuning. But indeed is true the fact that without interactio
131.
by effed3 3y ago
I look at the interlisp effort, being reworked.. So would be really difficult to setup a public/no-profit startup/company to bring up all the stuff, and coordinate all the people involved? maybe even a new hw can be made again.. P
132.
by effed3 3y ago
Apart the expertise, is hard to say if is best to be an optimist and hope for the best, or to be a pessimist an hope being wrong. Anyway i suspect that one true risk, among others, is to loose the true ability to think, if we delegate on a
133.
by effed3 3y ago
A good point. Another point can be: A l-Daemon in this universe must know even about itself, being a part of the whole, creating a loop? in ANY case, reality cannot do a replay. we cannot have twice the same universal configuration/con
134.
by effed3 3y ago
Adding some points: Radio waves (very high frequency) of GPS cannot go deep in the ocean. Very low frequency can, but their wavelenght is very big, so unsuitable for a GPS. The only ways to "see" undersea are acoustic and magneti
135.
by effed3 3y ago
An alternative proposal, (not only about capitalism) can be: 1st step, people vote programs, the things to do. 2nd step, people vote who will actuate programs. Quite abstract, i know
136.
by effed3 3y ago
>>The individual pursuit of wealth is not increasing common well-being anymore. >That’s how it’s always been and that’s how we got to where we are today We are stuck in a planetary size inequality, damaging all, event the rich. &gt
137.
by effed3 3y ago
> "Our ruling elites have ignored the issue for decades. Not because they did not care, but because they had no idea how to solve it." Being elites, they did not care, because they had no idea how to solve it, and remain elites
138.
by effed3 3y ago
> "Russia doesn't really have a benefit of destroying the dam because it is their civilian population and military downstream that are the most affected" (just this among others) Considering how (russian) soldiers are sent
139.
by effed3 3y ago
I remember, some time ago, someone (more than one, to be precise) used NN (neuralnets) to resolve some math problems (differential equations, IIRC, i have lost the refs). Suddently some others stated the death of Mathematics, and in genera
140.
by effed3 3y ago
just another opinion in the field: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/08/ai-mac...
141.
by effed3 3y ago
The article is a big set of -opinions- with no true -fact- at support. The actuals -AI- are mainly LLM systems, and are quite far away from being intelligent, but actually -capable- in some areas. The misuse of these (and others) -capable-
142.
by effed3 3y ago
maybe Artificial Ability (AA) would be a better term than AI. Cybernetics is better than "Artificial Life". Seems that talking about Intelligence is like talking about Soul or Life, too much different opinions, and using precise t
143.
by effed3 3y ago
surely (or quite probably..) you can reprase with "possibly", with no change in the overall sense (to me), different point of view, possibile, probable, but same unknow.
144.
by effed3 3y ago
"All that brains do is pattern match, they just do it in a complicated way that we have no clue about yet" probably brain do something way more complex than pattern match. The question can be: how much we can emulate of brain (o
145.
by effed3 3y ago
I Agree. Probably the big part of the "intelligence" here, is by the reader, seeing in the textual output of a probabilistic model some sense or quality. The intelligence is hidden in the training data, i suppose, and probably th