>I don't see why narrow AI couldn't be trained to solve specific issues.

Because nobody came up with a business plan profitable enough for our financial overlords to grow a will to solve climate change.

Just having the "pleasure" button artificialy pushed would feel empty. But having a great time, and sharing it with new people, in new locations, discovering new stuff, in a wrold with enough tech to imagine new experiences, travels, forms of arts, or type of sentient entities we can't even think of today could probably keep me entertained at least a few centuries.

But if we ever get to witness the singularity, our best bet is to stay mentally flexible, and ready to reassess any of our belief. Because that would be one hell of a ride to destination unknown.

Since I can't agree with your second point, I'm not sure there's much to discuss.

Yeah, but since AIs get designed by capitalists, it will suggest capitalist solutions.

"It looks like you're doing you job. Would your boss like me to replace you?"

Oh, don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you about the search for knowledge being its own reward, but in our world of performance and KPIs and ROIs, the position tend to get less and less popular.

Then what do we expect training student to do stuff an insightful, good and quick thinking AI will do quicker and better than a human, rather than training students to manage the AI outcome, reading it critically, and take decisions out of it?

What the point of training student to do stuff machines will do better?

>A survey, carried out by French jobs website RegionsJob, has revealed that a whopping 76 percent of Parisians and people living in the Paris region are willing to take a pay cut to avoid the hassle of their daily commute.

Taking a pay cut and avoid the hassle of their daily commute is simple, they just have to leave the Paris area.

Yet it's still one of the most attractive area in the whole country, even with all of its shortfalls. Go figure.

Yup, this one is mine. And it's assumed as an even worse mean of transportation than public transport by people commuting by car. But we got public bicycles available for cheap both where I live and next to the office.

Of course, my case is an exception, France is an ultra-centralized country, with Paris reaching population densities way higher than anywhere else. The thing is I live there, people I talk to live there, so yeah, we're in an exceptional situation, where the most straightforward solution used everywhere else might not apply here. As I wrote before, cars will always be in need in some areas. Some others can do better with less of them.

Then I must live in one of these few areas they describe where public transportation is quicker than cars, cause I definitely checked my personal case, several times, with hard data, since people tend to be quite skeptic when I tell them that. While GPS is good quality data, I would have liked to see transportation segregated between road-based and specific infradtructures. Of course public buses will be impacted by rush hour, while trains and subways much less so.

Edit : I see you exemple, and public transportation from suburbs to suburbs is notoriously inefficient, caus everything needs to go through the center. A peripheric line is being built to improve that.

Dunno, I don't see a lot of trains and subways stuck in traffic jams. I leave around Paris, and used to get home quicker by tram than my colleagues living in the same area, using their cars. Now I use a bicycle, and I'm even a bit quicker, while they're still as slow as usual.

It's not about ending car. It's about minimising its use. There will always be cases where cars will be more efficient. But building cities around the need to drive 40+ minutes from home to get groceries or go to work is stupid. It cost you money, pollutes, takes room from other infrastructures, and that's time of your life you'll never get back.

European here. Cars are a necessity in rural areas, stuff being built afar is just how rural areas are. On the other hand, this is not in rural areas that cars cause traffic issues, air pollution or noise nuisances. Yes, cars will still be needed in some areas. These areas still existing is no good basis to keep building high density area around car as the default choice.

Also, somebody should tell it Muslims are not supposed to drink.

Sweet.

You got faith the singularity will happened, you may have a date in mind, possibly backed by more of less data.

We got hard data about climate change, even the nicest model estimations are quite dire, and, most importantly, field experts may not all agree on the details, they all agree on the situation getting dire.

We need solutions now, not hypothesis for later. If the singularity happens (and I sure hope it's a when, not an if) , it will make stuff simplier. But without any hard deadline on its delivery, we can count on it yet while making plans about our future.

Keep hoping, but don't plan for it. Don't become another rapture fundamentalist.

Or to put a roof above your head and eat.

People should know better than to trust Musk, especially when it comes to deadlines.

You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down and you see a tortoise. It's crawling toward you.

>An AI model has no real scarcity: it can be copied and run on anyone's computers with no limits.

Gamer here. An executable being written in a language your personal computer understands is no guarantee it will run well on your rig.