Only around 10,000 generations.

Anatomically modern humans are only 300,000 years old. Behaviorally modern humans are younger than that, anywhere between 50,000 years old to 150,000 years old.

That’s not automation.

That’s like saying a cleaning service is automation: if people are physically doing the work, it’s not automated.

Not within decades. Within decade.

The article title says decade singular and the article itself says “within a decade”.

Misleading.

A smart fridge doesn’t mean your grocery shopping has been automated. It means that your fridge sends a grocery list to the store and a store worker does your grocery shopping for you.

That’s not automation: that’s paying somebody else to do your housework.

Being wrong about what Judaism is or how many people died in the Holocaust doesn’t make somebody a Nazi apologist.

Does it make them unfit to speak on that subject? Yes. Does this mean that they’re part of some Neo-Nazi shadow conspiracy to corrupt America’s youth? No it doesn’t.

You sound like you’re some chronically online guy who has nothing better to do than spam a totally unrelated subreddit about how a politician you don’t like is secretly a Nazi.

I’m sorry, what?

I listened to the video where Sarah Arthur is speaking to an interviewer. Is that everything or is there more to this?

Her point seems to have been about reading the perspectives of everybody involved, including the individuals committing the atrocities. Specifically, she mentioned reading the perspectives of a Polish person sent to a camp, a Jewish person also sent to a camp, and a German soldier. I don’t know if that kind of thing is appropriate for a teenager to read, but there’s definitely value in reading about what the bad guys where thinking and getting a thorough understanding of how and why an atrocity like this happened.

I’ll grant you that referring to Holocaust victims in the “hundreds of thousands” rather than millions was really sketchy, but given how hard she was stumbling on her words, I didn’t interpret that as an anti-Semitic dog whistle.

There’s more to this story, right?

You could still have an interesting movie about localized disruptions.

Like a power outage on Mars.

Or Antarctica or under the ocean.

Or have a Carrington event or terrorists with a superweapon. Or aliens.

There's tons of room for creativity.

Does it?

It seems like anything critical of modern economic systems is deemed “anti-capitalist” or “pro-socialist” these days.

It’s not anti-capitalist to think that our current economic system wouldn’t function in a post-work environment or that the singularity might make certain issues with our modern economic systems way worse, for example.

I agree with your general point, for the record.

But:

>It’s absolutely a problem that these programs are trained using material the developers don’t have permission to use.

This part I mentioned earlier is still valid.

Just because something is posted on the Internet doesn't mean you have permission to use it. These AIs are using artist's work in ways the developers don't have permission to and that's a fair complaint.

It's one thing when somebody uses somebody else's artwork for personal use, and often artists say that's fine, but it's something else entirely when a for-profit company uses somebody else's artwork to train an AI for their commercial product.

Is that an issue with our economic systems? Absolutely. Are some artists taking their anger out on the wrong people and issues? Absolutely. Does that make them backwards luddites? No, they still have legitimate grievances.

Artists make valid arguments.

It’s absolutely a problem that these programs are trained using material the developers don’t have permission to use. Imagine you spent your entire life creating a portfolio and then somebody you have no affiliation with fed your work to a software without your permission and is now using the software to produce new work based on your style.

It’s not hard to see where these guys are coming from.

I assume this is in reference to communities like r/antiwork and r/wallstreetbets, which became fundamentally different communities after their 15 minutes of fame.

I'm sure this will happen to r/singularity or an adjacent community where somebody famous mentions the concept and "normies" flood the subreddit with opinions the regulars consider lowbrow.

The answer obviously isn't to gatekeep people who are interested in learning, though the community would have to make some clarifications. This subreddit already has a rule for no low quality posting. Does that include doomerism? Does it include non-empirical suspicions about an AI-driven apocalypse?

If have no idea when this will happen, or if it'll happen at all, and by extension, we don't know what the Reddit or broader Internet landscape will be like. Like many of the topics we discuss, there are a lot of unknowns, and most likely, it'd be best to leave this to the people of the time to decide what they want to happen.

Good.

Airbnb is so expensive nowadays. The only reason we still get Airbnbs is because we like having a kitchen for long stays, but other than that, it's hotels all the way.

>I am an expert on this subject matter, and know what's easily automatable and what's not.

You might be a SME for automation, but that doesn't mean you're a SME for art.

My point was that other people have knowledge and expertise you don't. That means you should be having a conversation with them, not condescendingly lecturing them about what the future of their own field is like.

You might be 100% correct that the person you're speaking to will be automated out of a job in 10 years, but given how you describe these people as "overvaluing" themselves and "being in denial", you're likely talking at them about automation, not to them. Of course somebody would be on the defensive when you enter a conversation assuming you know the future of their life's work and believe they overvalue themselves.

You should listen to what these subject matter experts have to say before immediately attempting to refute them.

I'm not an artist, for example, and I know almost nothing about art. When an artist tells me about what their work is like, I listen to what they have to say because I don't know any better. If an artist tells you their job isn't as automatable as you think, that's worth listening to and digesting. They might ultimately be incorrect, but their perspective is value and can help you form a fuller picture of what the future of their industry will look like.

Talk to somebody in your desired field.

Find the phone number or email address of somebody at a college you’re interested in attending and see if they’d be willing to talk about what they think career prospects look like. This person can give you a much better answer than a rando on a futurism subreddit.