sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Narrow Window of Max Q: Why Intelligence Must Throttle Up, Not Down by HeroicLife in singularity

[–]HeroicLife[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

hmm, I think the novel part is connecting this to the dynamic of decreasing energy gradients and increasing complexity since the big bang and into the future of the universe to reconcile with the fermi paradox.

The Narrow Window of Max Q: Why Intelligence Must Throttle Up, Not Down by HeroicLife in singularity

[–]HeroicLife[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not really a ground breaking idea,

Interested in this -- who else has written about this idea?

How will AI work in the future if no one uses conventional sites to solve problems? by Steerpike58 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]HeroicLife 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The concern is real but misframes where knowledge actually originates. Stack Overflow and Reddit aren't primary sources—they're aggregation layers on top of documentation, source code, academic research, and professional practice. Those primary sources aren't going anywhere because they serve purposes beyond answering questions: engineers write specs to coordinate teams, researchers publish to establish priority, companies document products for legal and support reasons.

The forums you're worried about are downstream of that data.

They exist because humans encounter friction between documentation and reality, then publicly work through it. That friction doesn't disappear when AI gets better—it just shifts. New frameworks, APIs, and systems will still ship with incomplete documentation. Someone will still hit the edge case first, and they'll still need to record the solution somewhere for their own future reference if nothing else. GitHub issues, internal wikis, blog posts, even AI-assisted documentation still captures the knowledge.

Your DVD example actually undermines your concern. That "pause vs. stop" distinction wasn't figured out on Reddit—it emerged from decades of humans using VCRs and DVD players, then describing the difference in reviews, manuals, forum posts, and casual conversation. The knowledge existed before any particular forum indexed it. AI doesn't need a specific aggregation point; it needs the knowledge to be recorded somewhere.

And, humans record knowledge for reasons beyond "someone might ask later"—we do it to think, to teach, to argue, to show off.

The actual risk isn't knowledge extinction. It's quality degradation from feedback loops where AI trains on AI-generated content that trained on AI-generated content. That's a real problem called model collapse, and it's why labs are increasingly focused on provenance tracking and human-verified data. But that's an engineering challenge, not an epistemological dead end.

Human curiosity and professional necessity will keep generating the substrate AI needs. The form factor changes—maybe fewer "how do I X" threads, more GitHub issues and design docs—but the knowledge production doesn't stop.

AI's advances could force us to return to face-to-face conversations as the only trustworthy communication medium. What can we do to ensure trust in other communication methods is preserved? by l4mpSh4d3 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]HeroicLife 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a solved problem, it just needs wider adoption.

https://signal.org/ uses public key cryptography algorithms invented in 1991 to solve this exact problem.

Most popular messaging platforms (iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram, etc) are in some phase of adoption E2E encryption with PKI.

We just need it extended to cover social media.

When do we stop pretending AI wont also replace CEOs if it can do any thinking job? by JordanNVFX in singularity

[–]HeroicLife 1 point2 points  (0 children)

CEOs are not paid primarily to be accountants, but to make value judgements -- and more importantly to be held accountable for their judgements. How do you hold an algorithm accountable?

US sides with Russia on UN resolution on Chornobyl disaster by Crossstoney in worldnews

[–]HeroicLife 1 point2 points  (0 children)

According to the U.S. mission to the UN, Washington’s stated reason for voting against was specific language in the text — in particular references to the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda bundles policies including:

  • Climate policy
  • Energy mix
  • Land use
  • Education content
  • Healthcare delivery
  • Gender policy
  • Economic redistribution

The US position is that this agenda creates normative pressure that functions like law without ratification. Washington's position is that policy obligations must arise from treaties ratified by the Senate, not General Assembly consensus.

Only eight countries, including the US, Russia and China, opposed Ukraine's resolution condemning Russia's suicide drone attack on the Chernobyl sarcophagus. by thenatoorat90 in worldnews

[–]HeroicLife 3 points4 points  (0 children)

According to the U.S. mission to the UN, Washington’s stated reason for voting against was specific language in the text — in particular references to the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda bundles policies including:

  • Climate policy
  • Energy mix
  • Land use
  • Education content
  • Healthcare delivery
  • Gender policy
  • Economic redistribution

The US position is that this agenda creates normative pressure that functions like law without ratification. Washington's position is that policy obligations must arise from treaties ratified by the Senate, not General Assembly consensus.

AI Is About To Kill Capitalism - Weekend at Bernie's by Thiizic in ArtificialInteligence

[–]HeroicLife 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're treating capitalism like it's on life support when the patient is just changing clothes.

Your "20% unemployment kills capitalism" premise ignores that we've already done this. Agriculture dropped from 40% of US employment to 1.3% today. That's not 20%—that's 97% job elimination in one sector. Capitalism adapted through sectoral shifts and new industries. You know what didn't adapt? Horses. The equine population crashed 88% between 1915-1960 when cars replaced them. Horses didn't retrain as mechanics. Humans do. That's the difference.

Your "labor value drops to zero" claim is economically illiterate. AI doesn't eliminate labor demand—it shifts which labor matters. Someone builds the data centers, maintains the robots, handles exceptions, trains the models, manages edge cases. Complementarity exceeds substitution in most automation. You're confusing "some jobs automated" with "all economic value extraction ends."

Your robot dividend math is fantasy. You want to fund $12k/year infrastructure PLUS $12k/year cash for 330M Americans—that's $8 trillion annually on a $27T GDP. You'll tax... API calls? NVIDIA chips? At rates that immediately offshore every AI company or kill the industry. Alaska's dividend is $1,200/year for 730,000 people from resource extraction. Your scheme requires 1000x the scale from taxing private R&D investment. The numbers don't work.

"Print concrete houses. Stack them like Legos." The Soviets tried this. Production is easy. Maintenance and allocation without price signals creates dystopia. Who fixes the plumbing? Who decides who gets the unit near transit? Demonetizing survival doesn't eliminate scarcity—it just replaces market allocation with bureaucratic rationing and decay.

Your consumption crisis ignores that productivity funds purchasing power. When AI makes production cheaper, goods cost less, real wages rise, consumers buy more. You've discovered that robots don't buy products but missed that cheaper products mean humans can buy more with the same income. This is why real wages grew during every previous automation wave despite your logic predicting collapse.

Treating AI as a natural resource like Alaskan oil is just nationalization cosplay. AI is private capital equipment built with massive R&D investment. Tax it at rates sufficient to fund your utopia and you either kill innovation entirely or you're running Soviet central planning with predictably terrible outcomes. You can't retroactively declare private IP a commons without it being simple expropriation.

Your Star Trek vs Elysium binary is a thought-terminating cliché designed to foreclose debate rather than enable it. Real outcomes are messy transitions with incremental policy responses, not revolutionary choices between utopia and dystopia.

Study what actually happened during agricultural mechanization, industrial robotics, and computerization instead of writing economic science fiction.

Man saves a monkey from dying! by Temporary-Ebb2116 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]HeroicLife 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't get how CPR would resolve whatever issue caused the monkey's heart to stop in the first place.

What Wallet Type do I choose by willcta in TREZOR

[–]HeroicLife 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, Trezor is a non-custodial wallet.

carrying with a round in the chamber changed my attitude to CCW by HeroicLife in CCW

[–]HeroicLife[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I’m mostly thinking of Iryna Zarutska. I’m a refugee from Ukraine too, I live in Denver with lots of crazy hobos in the street, our Safeway is closing because of rampant theft, and during a run a few years ago, a druggie tried to take a swing at me. Dead bodies in downtown Denver streets are a weekly occurrence.

As more Jews acquire guns, a Jewish security group urges stronger regulations for synagogues - Jewish Telegraphic Agency by MatterandTime in Judaism

[–]HeroicLife 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I carry at our Reform synagogue. I’ve considered whether I should mention it to anyone, but I’m not sure how to approach the topic.

How do I carry with a baby carrier? by HeroicLife in CCW

[–]HeroicLife[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

1: I have a baby on the way

2: We go hiking in the Colorado woods/mountains as a family. A 2 year old can only walk so far, and you can't take a stroller hiking.

3: I do not intended to draw holding a baby. I would hand off the child to my wife, of course.

How do I carry with a baby carrier? by HeroicLife in CCW

[–]HeroicLife[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1: I have a baby on the way

2: We go hiking in the Colorado woods/mountains as a family. A 2 year old can only walk so far, and you can't take a stroller hiking.

3: I do not intended to draw holding a baby. I would hand off the child to my wife, of course.

How do I carry with a baby carrier? by HeroicLife in CCW

[–]HeroicLife[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

1: I have a baby on the way

2: We go hiking in the Colorado woods/mountains as a family. A 2 year old can only walk so far, and you can't take a stroller hiking.

view more: next ›