Personally I get immense enjoyment out of not doing anything useful, especially not on a big scale. So if I were to accidentally "make it big", I'd most likely not do it again and keep enjoying the small inconsequential things.
> So, the real question is, if a really cute girl that you like smiling in front of you, and she asks your "star type" (or "constellation"), what would you really do at that spot?
That's an oxymoron because stupidity is never cute. If she appeared cute before saying that, she certainly wouldn't after.
Corporations can be regarded as AI agents with misaligned goals. In a bit over a century this has resulted in damage to the climate and Earth's ecosystem that is threatening the survival of our civilization. And that's just slow, badly optimized paperclippers so far.
It's really not though is it, that's just your programming thinking for you.
Human deaths from weather and climate related events are near all time lows, while overall population is indeed at all time highs. We have better crop yields (3) and productivity thanks to both technology and indeed, CO2 fertilization of the atmosphere (4), which is driven by photosynthesis, a process which is optimized at thousands of ppm for the vast majority of plant species, many multiples from where we now stand.
Of course, the most abundant periods for life on earth have been periods of abundant carbon, such as the Carboniferous era, and the Cambrian era (5).
Clearly the ecosystem is far from collapse as a result of mild warming and improved plant productivity. In many regards, it's thriving, and certainly more so than 100-120 years ago, which predated any pretense of conservation at all.
And we know that it's indeed glaciation (global cooling) that so often leads to catastrophe in ecosystems (1)(2).
But that we can program human beings with subtle prods of horrific and exaggerated headlines, along with cult-like expectations of consensus, into believing the opposite to be true from reality, is certainly an indication of paperclip optimization gone awry.
Huge amount of monocultures are not the sign of a healthy environment, but one that is at the precipice of collapse.
This behavior is seen in animal populations quite often. A series of 'good' events happen allowing the population to expand beyond the mean population capacity. If the good times are excessively long or excessively good you can see a rapid overshoot in total population. When this occurs the population is screwed. Even if 'bad' times do not come just reducing resources to what the mean population can support means that a large dying off will occur, that die off will typically kill almost all the population of said animal because of consumption of almost all available food. You then get a drastic reduction in total population far below the mean carrying capacity. If the environment switches from 'good' times, say high water availability into extreme extended drought you can get species extinction.
You're making the mistake of assuming that somehow humanity is better off because our population is larger. There is no intrinsic benefit to a population of 8 billion, 4 billion, or 2 billion. None of those numbers are a population bottleneck in any manner. For comparison, bonobos have a population of something like 50,000.
Having more people doesn't improve the quality of life of those people. It's just more people.
Clearly the ecosystem is far from collapse while we're in the middle of a rapid human-caused mass-extinction. What kind of propaganda are you smoking, bro.
Diversity vs biomass. If AI prefers biomass over diversity we're pretty much fucked ;) If it prefers diversity - at least some of us will remain in ZOOs ;)
The conditions necessary for biomass expansion are also conducive to biodiversity. Indeed, the vast majority of biological diversity is in the tropical region of earth. Species of life seem to have a very hard time in the arctic regions.
As for AIs, I see no reason why they should prefer any characteristic of ecology at all, if all of their needs can be met from silicon and electricity.
The sources are cited and your comment is against HN policy. If you care to engage with someone more educated than yourself on a topic, I'm happy to debate on fair terms.
Your sources are absolutely irrelevant when your argument has a vast hole that is evident to anyone who has even a little bit of actual understanding about the issue. You can cargo-cult as many sources you like, they do nothing to save a fundamentally broken argument.
You're well aware of the game you're playing, your argumentation is disingenuous. You have reframed and obfuscated the issue of climate change to suit your preferred narrative, and misrepresented the science. You have indulged in ad hominem attack by saying someone here is less educated than you, thereby flouting the site's guidelines while at the same time invoking them to hide behind them.
Regarding the papers you cite, you seem to have misrepresented the views of the authors.
You cite author J Brown [1]. Another of his papers [2] says "increased energy demand and climate consequences of burning fossil fuels will continue to accompany a rapidly urbanizing planet posing major challenges for global sustainability."
You cite a NASA report of a study, saying it denies mass extinction, and suggesting that global warming supports increased life by making polar regions habitable. The report and study do not support your position. The paper itself [3] cites [4] which stresses the importance of minimising climate warming via "net negative emissions". The authors also acknowledge that "most models lack a representation of regionally important ecosystems (peatlands, wetlands)" the destruction of which they note as "negative".
Your citing of glaciation is frankly odd, and again the papers don't support your arguments. For example in [5] the authors say "it was the loss of habitat diversity [...] that triggered a drop in speciation rate, and subsequent loss of biodiversity." Further, they contradict your assertions by pointing out that biodiversity can increase in cooler zones: "cool-water niches were available to be filled, warm-tropical niches did not exist". However, to go further down this rabbit hole would be to indulge in your game of misdirection, and I've no intention of doing that.
In short, your posts in this thread appear entirely untrustworthy and you seem to be acting in bad faith. I notice you've posted climate change 'skeptical' content here previously. You suggest it is others who have been "programmed", but seem reluctant to examine the nature of your own susceptibility to misinformation, which frankly comes across as disdainful and superior.
The whole “world is ending thing” is a bit hysterical in my opinion. Discussion on it is so stifled because people don’t want to sound like they’re anti-environment so they don’t check the least reality based voices.
That doesn't sound right. Even 95% of max heart rate is sustainable for a long, long time. Intervals one can only sustain for 30s are way above VO2max intensity deep in the anaerobic zone. Heart rate pretty much maxes out on those.
90% of maximum heart rate is the start of the anaerobic zone, and maintaining it for multiple minutes requires intense training. If you think you're sustaining 95% for any sort of time then that means you've failed to measure your maximum heart rate correctly.
This really isn't accurate at all. I'm in very strong aerobic shape and 95% of my max heart rate is not at all sustainable for more than a few minutes, and it is also a deeply anaerobic activity. VO2Max != max heart rate. Your heartrate @ VO2 max is typically much lower than your max heartrate. Max genuinely means max in this case, as in, literally the highest you can get your heartrate up. By definition, you are way above your VO2 max in that situation and it is not going to be sustainable for long at all.
Something like 90% approaches what you're talking about, maybe being sustainable for 15 minutes or so, but that 5% makes an enormous difference.
You might be right and my 95% was a bit off. But the main point is that 80-85% being sustainable for only 30s might only be the case for someone who is in absolutely terrible shape.
I completely agree with this, yet people have a hard time accepting it because hunger evokes so much emotion.
Eating food with a focus on satiation helps with this. It's normal to feel hungry, but you can offset it to a degree with proper food choice. Hell, I'm hungry right now
It sounds like you're referring to MemoServ. This requires both parties to have an account on the server, and a separate private message to a dedicated bot.
What was being described was more like saving a highlight; with much less friction. On Discord, I can @someone even if they're a nickname-only user with no account.
