[Thanatos19]

Shotgun, on 25 July 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

There is a natural carbon cycle that keeps the natural output of CO2 stable. Basically the amount of CO2 natural resources toss out is around the same amount natural resources like the ocean and vegetation absorb. The majority of the shit we're spewing out does not get absorbed and accumulates, basically throwing it all off balance. That extra amount of CO2 is building all the time. The planet has natural cycles but we've basically sped it up to the hot cycle 46 times faster by the lowest estimates. One could assume that this hot cycle will be drastically worse that it ever would have been since it's not likely we'll be changing our ways anytime soon.

The lowest estimates? I've seen estimates saying we haven't affected it at all.

I have a hard time believing that Mother Nature can't compensate for an extra 0.001% of CO2, or whatever the exact number is.

[GA_Eagle]

Thanatos19, on 25 July 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

Idk. That last hurdle to a true AI is a huge one.

There's a number of hurdles but I think you mean in a bigger sense, ie the leap from where we are now to true ai is a big step. I contend that 30 years is a long time in a computer and software development sense. Think of 1982's tech to 2012's tech and you'll have an idea of how much different it'll be in 30 years.



I don't know if you remember thinking video phones sounded like awesome thing that would never happen or not but I sure did as a kid. Hold on my Mom's calling on Skype.

[RANGA]

Robot uprising anyone?

[Thanatos19]

The difference is, Eagle, we are slowing down. The law of exponential technological increase, whatever its technical name is, at least for computers, is no longer applicable.

I'm not sure we'll ever get true AI, I don't know that it's possible. Creating a machine that actually thinks on its own... I'm just not sure how. We can easily make a machine that can fool people into thinking its a human, we're almost there already. But true artificial intelligence is very different.

[56AceInDaPlace]

Thanatos19, on 25 July 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

The difference is, Eagle, we are slowing down. The law of exponential technological increase, whatever its technical name is, at least for computers, is no longer applicable.

I'm not sure we'll ever get true AI, I don't know that it's possible. Creating a machine that actually thinks on its own... I'm just not sure how. We can easily make a machine that can fool people into thinking its a human, we're almost there already. But true artificial intelligence is very different.

Ok no sarcasm or anything but why dont u think its possible? Is it because of the technology u see everyday? Like not seeing something thats beyond the average tecnology society uses today just means its not possible to u?

[GA_Eagle]

Thanatos19, on 25 July 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

The difference is, Eagle, we are slowing down. The law of exponential technological increase, whatever its technical name is, at least for computers, is no longer applicable.

I'm not sure we'll ever get true AI, I don't know that it's possible. Creating a machine that actually thinks on its own... I'm just not sure how. We can easily make a machine that can fool people into thinking its a human, we're almost there already. But true artificial intelligence is very different.

I have heard that as well, though if there are some break throughs nano technology and it starts all over again, imo. We're reaching a maximum of what we can do with our current means of manufacture, I think and creating drastically different methods changes the game.

[Thanatos19]

56AceInDaPlace, on 25 July 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

Ok no sarcasm or anything but why dont u think its possible? Is it because of the technology u see everyday? Like not seeing something thats beyond the average tecnology society uses today just means its not possible to u?

Not at all. It's the idea of being able to create an actual free-thinking being. I'm just not sure tech can do that. I know that right now we have no clue how to break that last hurdle. Obviously that can change, but we'd have to go about it a fundamentally different way. I'm not saying it can't happen, just that I'm not sure I see it happening.

GA_Eagle, on 26 July 2012 - 06:45 AM, said:

I have heard that as well, though if there are some break throughs nano technology and it starts all over again, imo. We're reaching a maximum of what we can do with our current means of manufacture, I think and creating drastically different methods changes the game.

Yeah, we'd need to completely change the way of doing things. The leap from making a walking encyclopedia of all human information, which could rather easily make someone believe they are human, to actually making a true AI, is just huge.

[Duck Fallas]

I honestly think that a plague of some kind will be the undoing of humanity. Sure we can create vaccines for a lot of things, but there are many common illnesses that we have yet to figure out: Cancer, the common cold, AIDS etc; Who is to say that something as workaday as a cold won't mutate to an even less treatable and more communicable form in the future? Think about how fast a cold can spread now.

Most of the other things on that list are able to be predicted and we can therefore minimize/reduce the affect on humans before they can become a real threat. It is the things that we cannot see that really worry me more than anything else.

[Thanatos19]

Duck Fallas, on 26 July 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

I honestly think that a plague of some kind will be the undoing of humanity. Sure we can create vaccines for a lot of things, but there are many common illnesses that we have yet to figure out: Cancer, the common cold, AIDS etc; Who is to say that something as workaday as a cold won't mutate to an even less treatable and more communicable form in the future? Think about how fast a cold can spread now.

Most of the other things on that list are able to be predicted and we can therefore minimize/reduce the affect on humans before they can become a real threat. It is the things that we cannot see that really worry me more than anything else.

Something cool I learned about the common cold- we aren't going to figure out a way to stop it. The reason why is because there are literally millions of different types of bacteria that cause the common cold. The reason you get sick is your body's white blood cells over-react to what is in fact, a nearly-harmless bacteria. They see a foreign invader, so they rush to stop it, and this causes you to get sick for a few days. If they simply left it alone, it would probably do nothing at all to you.

This post has been edited by Thanatos19: 26 July 2012 - 03:47 PM

[rzb]

Thanatos19, on 24 July 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

I honestly am confused how humans are responsible for the earth warming up when we've only been putting CO2 in the atmosphere for the last, what, 200 years? 250?

I don't know that I buy that humans are responsible for global warming. Sure we add CO2. But it's not much at all, compared to how much other things add.

Thanatos19, on 25 July 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

The amount of CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere compared to the amount of CO2 being put in there by natural resources is minimal, at best. So short answer: No. The idea that humans are adding enough CO2 to throw off the entire cycle of hot/cold, (because we do have a cycle going on here naturally), is not one I find very convincing.

Shotgun, on 25 July 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

There is a natural carbon cycle that keeps the natural output of CO2 stable. Basically the amount of CO2 natural resources toss out is around the same amount natural resources like the ocean and vegetation absorb. The majority of the shit we're spewing out does not get absorbed and accumulates, basically throwing it all off balance. That extra amount of CO2 is building all the time. The planet has natural cycles but we've basically sped it up to the hot cycle 46 times faster by the lowest estimates. One could assume that this hot cycle will be drastically worse that it ever would have been since it's not likely we'll be changing our ways anytime soon.

+1 to both of you. I feel like #1 being Global Warming was an absolute cop-out. I'm not saying that we shouldn't take care of Mother Earth but CO2 output shouldn't be the leading advertisement for being eco-friendly in my opinion.

As for what will take us out? Definitely something from space. We have deciding variables in the other instances. Galactic shit? No chance.