Nominative determinism

I hope this is at least banking that time; you don’t get overtime, but you can use that time later for paid time off.

If it’s the old style radioactive kind they get more sensitive with age.

No, it’s his friend’s magical teacup that goes wherever you command it. This poor victim just wasn’t careful with his incredulous utterance when his friend told him about it.

Here’s my translation attempt:

Imagine this as a stereotypical lame stand-up comedy routine.

“Counting Crows? Isn’t that just murder by numbers? Thanks, you’ve been a great crowd! My name’s Frances, I’ll be here all week.”

Probably Nausicaä, but a bunch of the Ghibli main characters are pretty great.

Very cool! This sort of tech will only really feel right if you’re waking straight ahead at a steady pace though. As soon as you change directions or otherwise accelerate it won’t feel right because you don’t have to deal with any of the momentum that you normally do.

I like the idea of it being used on inanimate objects for other purposes though. Could this be coupled with the volume to move some props in a way to really sell paralax or movement when viewed in camera? The SFX uses are probably many.

Or maybe it does, who knows. It’s the Cybertruck afterall

I don’t think it’s AI, but the very tips if the tails look like Photoshop to me

Oh wow… You could use a consent deep fake to trick another person to create the sex one. This gets messy quick…

I wonder what happens when it just accidentally looks like someone but was intended to be a fictional person. Also, how much can you base it on a real person before it’s considered a deep fake of that person? Would race-swapping be enough to make it a “new” person so it’s not illegal anymore? My intuition is that just eye colour or something wouldn’t be enough, but it’s a sliding scale where the line must be drawn somewhere even if it’s a fuzzy line.

What about an AI generated mashup of two people like those “what the child would look like” pictures back in the day. Does that violate both people or neither?

What about depicting a person older than they are now? That’s technically not somebody that exists, but might in the future.

What if you use AI but make it look like it’s hand-drawn or a cartoon?

What if you use AI to create sexual voice clips of a real person but use images that don’t look like them or no image at all?

There are just so many possibilities and questions that I feel it might be impossible to legislate in a way that isn’t always 10 steps behind or has a million unforeseen consequences.

How’d SAO make that list?

What about complicated exercise?

There’s holes in your pizza boxes?

Past and Current is not Future though.

Correct…? This is the problem of induction. As you’ve pointed out it’s flawed, and it’s also the best we can do for predicting the future.

That logically doesn’t make sense though, because it’s assuming the same amount of “step it up” (AKA ‘progress’), which is not guaranteed. Fusion realized can far outstrip consumables, “winning the race” as it were, even if it takes longer to do so.

This is the problem of induction again. Yes, fusion could have a breakthrough and then really take off. So could other technologies. The question is how likely are these things to happen? So far it’s not looking too great for fusion being special in that way.

Well, it hasn’t been invented yet. I think we should probably all wait until it actually has, before passing judgment on it.

I’m not passing judgment for the very reason it doesn’t exist. I’m making a speculation of what the end point will be based on how things have been going. The fact that it still doesn’t exist is a point against the technology btw.

Overall, I sense a general agenda from you, based on your comments, that you wish to forgo the investment in research and development for fusion, and instead concentrate on renewals like a solar, etc.

?? If you’re reading my other comments you’d see I literally explicitly say that fusion is still worth pursuing, even if it can’t be an energy source… Furthering science is good, even if it fails to do what we might’ve been trying to do. There’s essentially always other benefits that are often unforeseen at the time.

So, to recap:

• I think we’ll crack fusion.
• I think we’ll also get better at other stuff at the same time (and maybe find new things too).
• I also think that after all that, man made fusion as a source of energy isn’t likely to end up on top.
• Lastly, (and perhaps most importantly) I think it’s still worth trying to get fusion to work because it’d be great if it did! We’ll still learn things that can be applied elsewhere even if it’s not a great energy source.

I’m not sure how you can judge that, against something that doesn’t exist yet.

Simply based on past and current trends. The advancement curve on fusion would need to really step it up and if we say that it can, then we also need to accept the same is possible for the alternatives which means fusion still lags behind.

Fusion would need to be extra special somehow, and from what’s happened so far, it seems less special than the rest if anything.

Naturally this is all speculative of course, and being wrong on this is great either way as one way or another we will continue to get better at getting energy.

They also used to say Man will never fly.

Sure… I’m not saying fusion will never happen (it already does of course) or even that it’ll never be net positive for energy.

Just that, for energy it’s looking to be worse than most other options.

So I’m not saying man will never fly, I’m saying something closer to flying cars won’t happen. It’s not that we couldn’t do it, just that the alternatives are better.

I’m specifically referring to man-made fusion as an energy source… Otherwise essentially all of our energy sources could be called “fusion” since they all trace back to it in one way or another.

That’s not the stumbling block for fusion. Getting significantly more energy out than we put in is the issue. Other technologies did this better, and those other technologies are advancing more quickly as well.

That’s not to say it’s not worth trying since nothing ventured nothing gained. There are other technological advancements that will likely come from our progressions in fusion too which will be great. I just don’t see fusion as being a good way to generate energy.

I don’t think we’ll get to the point where the energy that comes out will be higher enough than the energy put in to justify its use compared to other energy sources.