I'm guessing you don't know the speaker. Saying something is BS just because it's on YouTube is interesting. What if it was a lecture by Terrence Tao on YouTube? Also just for argument sake, there's lots of ideas taken pretty seriously in physics that aren't directly testable, honestly border more on philosophy. Even simple things like what exactly is time, does all of spacetime exist at once as Einstein thought and so on.
It's not that difficult anymore, gene splicing is now something that can be done at home. Probably the hardest part is getting one's hands on the material. There was that biolab that was just busted this year in Las Vegas.
I don't agree with you which is fine. Also for the record, I'm not from nor have I ever lived in San Francisco but you're free to believe whatever makes you comfortable. I think you have some other version of my ideas. Like we're not even really having a discussion, it's more so you're battling with what you think I am saying than us actually having discourse. Anyways, seems like you're going to keep being unpleasant so I'm exiting the discussion.
Almost everyone is the hero of their story. If they think something it's because it's right and smart and if someone disagrees it's because they're bad and dumb regardless of the actual truth.
You're welcome to your opinions. I mean yeah it's definitely an idea and from a scientific mindset we can use it to make predictions and see if those predictions are accurate to see if the idea is accurately modeling reality or not. The amount of novel events seems doable to define and attempt a measurement so at least as a hypothesis I wouldn't say it's utterly unscientific.
Wait what do you mean by it? Oh AI. I guess that's my bad for not adding a paragraph. I was saying AI can functionally be used like a parlor wall if someone wanted. As for hunger I was saying we humans can choose to solve world hunger, we choose not to. Also I never said it was a food production issue. You're right that we definitely produce enough food for everyone yet there's still starvation. It's moreso a logistics issue as you pointed out and it's not as simple as just sending food as that will ultimately have harmful effects on the local economy. You're right that climate change is an issue and by this point we're far past solving it by simply changing our behavior, technology will be needed and likely some degree of geo engineering. Worse case scenario we should be planning for a full collapse of the biosphere now. The technology we need for space colonies is about what would be necessary to continue surviving outside of nature just minus the structure and protection from collisions or radiation.
Like I said you're free to say whatever you want. There's no harm in me asking for a mutually polite discussion. I don't agree with your synopsis of what you think I think and that's also fine. Put firmly the goal is to decrease needless and avoidable suffering for as many people as possible whether that's with policy or technology. For example, if we can end starvation then we should. We can today, we simply find justification not to. I'm not claiming that's what an AI is but it can be used as such, it's functionally identical if one sets it up that way.
I mean yeah a lot of ideas can be used to cause a lot of needless and avoidable suffering instead of preventing it which is what I think the actual thing is we want to avoid. Like in Gattaca it wasn't the gene editing that was the issue it was the dehumanization of a group that was the issue, unless they were editing themselves to be less compassionate but that's not in the plot. Once again I think we can talk without the name calling, I'm not being mean or rude to you personally and I would appreciate you having the same decency but you're free to do what you want. I guess I could say where I'm from and then you could just deny it. As for parlor walls, just get a few AI agents with an avatar playing out a plot you can interact with and it's essentially the same thing. Use a projector I guess and you got your wall.
A clandestine group using a model to aid in developing a nasty disease seems like the most likely uh oh scenario right now. Either that or an accidental scenario where AI was used somewhere it shouldn't have been.
Reality as far as we know has a limited resolution aka the plank scale. It kinda makes sense. If an object like an atom required infinite information to encode it would collapse into a black hole.
I'm not saying we should make it identical but honestly we could just make humans more compassionate and more apprehensive to causing harm if we wanted. It's like the Gattaca example, I'm not saying we should straight up duplicate the story one to one. With AI we essentially have parlor walls like fahrenheit 451 but does that mean reality is now exactly like the plot of fahrenheit 451? You can take an idea from somewhere without being forced to duplicate everything about the source.
I'm guessing you don't know the speaker. Saying something is BS just because it's on YouTube is interesting. What if it was a lecture by Terrence Tao on YouTube? Also just for argument sake, there's lots of ideas taken pretty seriously in physics that aren't directly testable, honestly border more on philosophy. Even simple things like what exactly is time, does all of spacetime exist at once as Einstein thought and so on.