We have similar treaties for the sea and for Antarctica a d they are generally followed as no country wants to be the one to break them. Not foolproof by any means and it’s pretty likely a rogue character like Trump would push through without thinking about the consequences.
That was just an example - in the book they are positing that most of the things people want to mine on the moon are actually very rare - though there may be a lot across the moon it will nit be easy to mine it because the density is low.
What exactly are they going to mine? I’n “A City On Mars” (Kelly and ZACH Weinersmith) they claim “one estimate suggests it takes 150 tons of regoluth to produce a single gram of helium-3”. How is that useful?
There are lots of claims online about how abundant Helium-3 is on the moon but they all gloss over the specifics.
I’m still waiting for a day to use this word in real life
Yeah wasn’t thinking anonymity, but keeping something running and making it hard to take down.
😂 I think I was tired
Seems like the kind of thing a defederated system would be good for…
Well you are doing a poor job of it and are bringing an unnecessary amount of heat to an otherwise civil discussion
Haha wtf are you talking about. You have no idea what generation I am, you don’t know how old I am and I never said there is nothing new under the sun.
You seem to think that one day somebody invented the first language, or made the first song?
There was no “first language” and no “first song”. These things would have evolved from something that was not quite a full language, or not quite a full song.
Animals influenced the first cave painters, that seems pretty obvious.
No… There are a lot of radio shows that get scientists to speak.
Haha coming in hot I see. Seems like I’ve touched a nerve. You don’t know anything about me or whether I’m creative in any way.
All ideas have basis in something we have experienced or learned. There is no completely original idea. All music was influenced by something that came before it, all art by something the artist saw or experienced. This doesn’t make it bad and it doesn’t mean an AI could have done it
What do you mean what do I mean? You were the one that said about ideas in the first place…
I am more talking about listening to and reading scientists in media. The definition of consciousness is vague at best
What new idea exactly are you proposing?
This is always my point when it comes to this discussion. Scientists tend to get to the point of discussion where consciousness is brought up then start waving their hands and acting as if magic is real.
Philosophers are so desperate for humans to be special. How is outputting things based on things it has learned any different to what humans do?
We observe things, we learn things and when required we do or say things based on the things we observed and learned. That’s exactly what the AI is doing.
I don’t think we have achieved “AGI” but I do think this argument is stupid.
Maybe you can provide some context of what you mean? I assume it is very contextual.
Love seeing open source projects from companies that aren’t specifically tech firms
Hmm I’ve read about aphantasia before and heard shows about it but this diagram actually made me think I may be a 4 or 5. When I try to imagine an apple all I have is flutters of memories of what apples look like, , but I can’t create a picture in my mind of one