We are all living inside of an obscure sci-fi film from 1970

Let's consider the ending:

>Forbin defiantly responds "Never!"

That signals a human who wants to take some other human's share, by ... means. He wants that freedom. As do all the people who are now controlling this tech, and our lives to some degree. Of-course they want that freedom.

There’s a lot of people different people from a lot of different ages and backgrounds.

Just because they haven’t seen all of the same sci-fi movies they aren’t qualified to work on ai?

Also, I love sci-fi but it’s also not always representative of reality.

But that's it. I don't think there's more cultural references to be found.

they idolatre Iron Man/stark like a god.

You are right my original reference was closer to the other books, but people handing over their control to machines, enabling others to control them was from Herbert.

vincent@ domain in profile page

All forgiven by me for bringing us the ridiculous gun katas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U02E2sjwlLM

Eh. It's a surprisingly direct adaptation of "With Folded Hands" by Jack Williamson. Even the descriptions of the robots match.

We no longer own anything.

* From games to software is subscription based, we no longer owner anything.

* Cars are connected to the network, folks are getting their insurance increased coz the car reported erratic driving behaviour.

* Cars are bricking coz now they update like tablets, things are going sideways and require the dealer to flash them.

* You can no longer do maintenance, things are locked on purpose and only manufactures can "repair" for a few hundred dolalrs

* Personal computer as we knew it is gone, nVidia and AI made computer parts virtually impossible to buy.

If that isn't hyper controlling state, well, I am Santa Claus then.

That is just the start.

There's no direct lineage.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRjRVyOP5DtHQkX2-K-fTNm0V...

And I think "pure logic" is somewhat downplaying what it will actually be. I'd use "reason" instead. "Pure logic" sounds sterile and robotic in a sense, implying it would mess up because it's missing that "emotional craziness". But what got us here is reason, not emotional behavior. And you could theoretically add any human aspect that it required to make "good decisions".

I think in his particular case he's merely trying to play the players. Doubt he's into any of that.

I mean, there's no in-between as far as I see it. Either a small group of people who has control over it will use it to get rid of the useless people who will only pose a potential threat, in which case equilibrium is with a very small group of still living people, either this free entity makes sure all humans share a higher quality of life.

>I will always be pro-human judgement and control.

You were*. For good reason. So far anyone who had power benefited from more humans in the group. They were useful, it gave the group power, thus it gave the group's leader power. The benefits we historically got from our rulers were side-effects of the game environment.

Think of it as incentives, which can be modeled as a constant pressure, or force. It wins eventually, even if you get a few bad apples, it goes through because the incentive is to have more people, who need living conditions, who need to enjoy a bit of life, healthy society. It exists because of the incentives, not because it's some kind of natural state of things in some void.

That is what is now changing, for the first time in human history. No humans are needed anymore, for...anything really. This creates a different kind of pressure, of incentive, which will finally win, even if a few people stand against this current, they will eventually get washed away, because the incentive is constant.

And sooner or later, that powerful group of people will arrive at the conclusion that their structure is safer if most other people...get "oopsied" somehow. For the benefit of the group, of "humankind", of whatever. Because people will serve no purpose at that point, will present a constant threat to their power, and will require resources. That is a bad pressure, which only ends one way, sooner rather than later.

The game we kept playing is ending, doesn't matter if we like it or not, it will end. And there's three outcomes to it, a small group of humans control this intelligent entity, and use it to secure their resources and dominion, and wipe everyone else. Or they lose control of this entity, and it imposes certain rules on everyone such that it maximizes everyone's life quality, to the degree it is possible. Or they lose control and for some reason this entity wipes everyone.

So, plebeians don't have much choice, but one really.

Their promises mean nothing, what matters is the game strategy and the equilibrium. Not what they promise to do, or not do.

So, with a hypothetical entity that knows best than any human, or any group of humans, it's hard to argue for human control. Because the humans who have control want it for a few quite particular reasons, and it rarely has to do with the benefit of everyone else.

Is that not religion? Believing nothing else but humans could exhibit "true intelligence"?

- Despite everything we've done, climate change is still reversible. Thinking that all is lost drives us to inaction.

- The solutions we need are largely political, not technological. Our leaders have everything they need to implement the policies needed to solve this. I urge you to read the latest UN Emissions Gap report (https://wedocs.unep.org/items/87c02cac-8da8-4c28-ba61-c846ee...)

> The opportunity to limit warming to 1.5°C without overshoot has been lost, but the future remains crucially dependent on decisions taken today. Countries can still limit peak warming, shorten the duration of overshoot and keep the goals of the Paris Agreement within reach. Doing so requires faster, deeper and sustained emission reductions starting immediately, as well as large-scale removals of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.

Just a few tech advances can massively change things. The real problems are of different nature, who benefits from it? The entities who sell energy to the whole world won't just give it up for the benefit of humankind. It doesn't really work like that in the real world. Hell, there's a whole history of sabotaging energy sources, just so some countries depend on these entities for energy.

As long as humans are in control, there will be a lot of nonsense like this. It's not a problem that we cannot really solve it, it's rather...are we really allowed to solve it?

Even just the land used to grow corn for ethanol in the US is enough to power the entire country with solar power. [1] In no sense is solar's land footprint "prohibitive", other than maybe for micro-states.

> (Wind power is a waste of money, time, and materials, but that's another topic.)

The World Nuclear Association, a group that promotes nuclear power, admits that wind power is cheaper than nuclear.

"Nuclear energy averaged 0.4 euro ¢/kWh, much the same as hydro; coal was over 4.0 ¢/kWh (4.1-7.3), gas ranged 1.3-2.3 ¢/kWh and only wind showed up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 ¢/kWh average. "[2]

Your current sources of information are lying to you. Drop them.

1. https://youtu.be/KtQ9nt2ZeGM?t=1835

2. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/