Yeah, fuck you

I can tell you right now that short of some metaphysical existence promised by religions that lies outside the plane of the mortal coil, it is not possible to live forever. I'm not saying we can't copy a conscience some day and through an overlay AI create something like eternal life. But even then, that can't last forever. Everything in the universe is finite, eventually energy will cease to exist to allow the AI to thrive. Hell, we can't even get a long term archiving process down, imagine an AI personality sitting in some dusty storage locker for thousands of years because 50 years after it was created, there weren't any terminals left to plug it jnto and allow it run, a la beta tapes.

We could transfer the AI between mediums, but then we are just making back up to the original, at what point do we say the original person who has been copied and transfered thousands of times over a million or so years is no longer the same person?

Also you need to clnsidder this, the AI would be replicated on a person who once lived for maybe 85 years, but the AI exists for thousands if not a million years, did the original person ever exist? Especially when the experiences and memories of the AI out number the progenitor 100:1, 1,000:1 or 10,000:1

Finnally who's going to keep the AI updated? The AI? Probably, it's funny, 100 million years from now, all that may remain of humanity would be the decendants of our AI overlays who for eons diligently copied and transfered the personalities of an extinct species from a planted that long since burnt to a crisp, and through that time those personalities too faded sending new AI overlays, shadows of themselves and hardly recognizable to the progenitors.

And like I said in the beginning, even if your AI decendants could make it to the end of the universe, eventually there won't be enough energy left to keep their circuits or whatever passes as information devices operational. Yes 10s of billions of years down the line in the darkness of space, of our decendants can even recall a time there were stars in the night skies, maybe somewhere in the recesses of their memory banks a floating sensation that can be remembered as warmth once felt by the progenitors will be their last conscious understanding as they too find their demise as everything else had done before and will do until the universe itself fades away.

So.... no its not possible to live forever

I think the main flaw with this argument is that it hinges on a person's desire to make money from their hobby, or seek recognition.

Let's say your hobby is golf, or dance, or back packing with family, millions of people do these activities for the pleasure of doing them. Because we are amateur hobbyists, not professionals. The root of amateur is one who does a hobby for the love of the activity, not for money.

For me, the best argument for UBI is that we as our society becomes more specialized, there will be a bigger gap between those who wish to work in those specialties, such as a doctor, lawyer, business man, yes AI CAN take over those industries, but there is a very strong human element required at the end of the day. When informed we appreciate and crave the warm bed side manner of a real medical professional, the best corporations require out of the box thinking and innovative leadership to make it I. The global economy. While much of the legal industry will be revolutionized by AI, negotiations, jury trial, and appellate reviews will demand in person representation to get the best outcome for a client. Ai may be able to learn how to mimick these qualities, but until the on the ground human feals a true connection with their overlords, it just won't happen.

No, where will AI truly help the world? Well, menial labor will soon be phased out, every step of the way ai powered robots will replace traditional workers. Corporations will amass explosive profit margins by not hiring a work force, and unemployment will skyrocket.

This is where the UBI comes in. Essentially income that would have gone towards paying g a human staff will be taxed then distributed to those who would otherwise never have become doctors, lawyers, or corporate overlords.

In this setting yes I can see a world where people enjoy their free time devoid of having to work if they don't want to, or lack the required tale to. And it's not like there won't be a market hand made goods. Even today the ultra wealthy prefer the quality of hand made items to those of mass production. Bespoke suits are a great example. Could an AI do the work a master tsilor currently does? Of course, but those with money will still go to their favorite tailor and drop $40,000 on a suit. Yes, AI could do it, but we appreciate knowing the history of items, the human skill that went into their development, even if they aren't distinguished from an AI generated product, there will always be a market for them.

With millions of people now spending unlimited periods of time hobbling and exploring the world, corporations will see an unprecedented ted spike in demand, increased demand means increased production and profits, meaning an increase in UBI from taxes.

Those who wish to work as a specialist can do so out of a sense of calling, and not simply as a means to living. Higher education can be free si ce it will predominantly be ran by AI at the lower levels and at the highest levels the scene won't be flooded with students like we have currently. Most law students now will never see a legal job did you k ow that? Yes the average debt incurred for the more than 60,00 newly minted lawyers each year is about $150,000. To me this means that most people shouldn't go to law school. In fact only about 10% of all first year lawyers work in jobs that are justified in pay fir their JD, many work in government jobs that pay less than $60k, these jobs mostly can be done away with by AI

I'm sure the same is true for the MD track and the MBA track. With less students feeling like they have to go into post graduate work to make something of themselves, they can instead follow their own passions and just enjoy life, wothout the crippling debt.

You fear an AI revolution that will turn a paridise into a hellscape, trap instead of free. This vision of yours was low hanging fruit. Invoking visions of sky net or the matrix? How cliche can you get? I'm sorry but creating a counter argument to utopia as edgy damnation has been tried and failed since biblical times, at least revelations and Daniel were more creative and original in their prophesies.

Swing and a miss

Math is a language, and order of operations is simply grammar to that language. Some times the order of operations makes logical sense, like performing parentheses and exponents first. But some operations, like adding/subtracting, multiplying/dividing see to be able to work regardless if the order. I mean, we do get an answer every time right? Jist different answers. So, how do we know what the "right" answer is? Well, as I said before, we use order of operations in the same way we use gramercy to dictate specific rules in language to help meaning in written word come across without confusing the intent.

Every mathematical operations. Can be analogies tk a real world scenario. A formula that reads, 2+5x3 can give an answer of 17 or 21 depending on whether the order of operations occurs or not.

The way to see what's happennign is to analyze what the problem is saying. This problem is saying, im adding two apples to 5 bags worth or apple, each holding 3 apples. Or 2 apples to 3 bags of apples, each containing 5 apples. That's the principle of of multiplicity. In this analogy we see the answer is 17 and that it makes sense.

Addition and subtraction are a lower ordered operation because they deal with single dimensional operations. Single number of apples vs. Multiplication. And division which deal with higher dimensional math, grouping or fractions. You can't add two single apples to packs of apples containing multiple apples and magically end up with more than what you actually have.

This break in logic is what is happenni g when you add or subtract before multiplying or dividing.

The problem woth hot fusion is that it's not clean energy. Hot fusion required a fusion reaction to Jumpstart the fusion reaction, this is how a hydrogen bomb works. If there's a clean way to do hot fusion then yeah, I'd be on that, but so far as I can tell, thered be no point to hot fusion that fission doesn't already solve

Um, I was directly answering the question asked "why is everyone so hung up over fusion anyway? What's so great about fusion?" I understand that most know why fusion is so great, I wasn't spouting the obvious just for my chuckles, a question was asked, I gave a reply

Just think about that for a second. The reactor didn't merely "break" that makes it sound like a simple mechanical failure in your car. When a reactor fails you have as good a likelihood of severe disaster as you do containment. And the containment of three mile island wasn't really containment, they just managed to stop the meltdown from going critical. Radioactive smoke still spewed into the air, even if there wasn't a chrynople style explosion with the meltdown or a Fukushima melt through the floor and into the ocean. Either was entirely possible, and it's less that the incident happened in the "good ol' US of A" than it was fortunate luck.

My main point was that if we ended up opening enough ractors to meet our current and future energy needs, eventually, sooner than later, we would have reactor meltdowns, and some would be like Fukushima and some would be like chrynople, and yes, some would be like three mile island.

Point is, we don't want that old 40 year technology running our reactors. As has been mentioned, there are way safer reactor designs now than what we are using ones that contribute far less waste. There is still was, but it is fractions upon fractions of what the current in use reactors produce.

Look into three mile island.

Also saying we haven't had any accidents isn't really a great reason. We also hardly have any nuclear power plants left. The US hasn't built a new power plant in like 40+ years. There are plenty of conventional power plants that cause work place injuries every year, of we had the same number of nuclear power plants as those, thered be no doubt that we'd have issues. And all it takes is one 3 mile island, one chyrnople, one Fukushima, and the public will be against fission again.

Fusion is the holy grail of nuclear energy. It uses light elements to create power so there aren't heavy radioactive isotope byproducts. Plus fusion is considerably more powerful, aka energy efficient compared to fission.

Fusion is clean nuclear energy while Fission is dirty nuclear energy.

We can create Fusion bombs, but that's hot Fusion, meaning we have to use a fission bomb to jump start the process, making the detonation dirty.

Nuclear reactors don't work like bombs, so we can't just nuke a Fusion reactor into existence.

Jumpstarting a Fusion reactor without a hot detonation is the holy grail of limitless clean energy-cold Fusion. And is why everyone is so "obsessed" over it.

Yes, I have seen the idea and think it's one of the ways we can mitigate nuclear waste and is why I'd rather side with nuclear at this point. Nuclear is cleaner than people realize amd through innovation will become cleaner still. It should be the horse we ride

A few things.....

It's really hard to get things into space. We can send up an empty trash can every now and again, sometimes we can send up a half filled trashcan. To send up more just for the purpose of dumping is realistic. We aren't talking about a few dozen trashcan here, we are talking about tens of thousands of barrel of wast and waste products like spent fuel rods, radioactivity cooling water, etc.

It's cost prohibitive. I can't remember the price but per pound it's extradoinarily expensive to send stuff up. I think it's like $40,000 per pound to launch supplies just to the space station. Now extrapolate that out to some location I assume you are thinking the sun, 90 million miles isn't too hard if we get the payload going on the right trajectory I suppose.

Finnally, we would have a duty to track each and every payload making sure we know where and when they make it to their destination. If a waste package doesn't make it to the dun it will likely end up crashing into Venus or mucury, or go jetosoning off into space. It might boomerangs back to earth, last thing we'd want is radioactive flaming trash raining from the skies. We owe it to our future decendants that will likely be off exploring and mining the asteroid belt to not run into Un tracked nuclear waste.

A practical concern I have is the rocket fuel expended in the launch will become radioactive. How many of those trips would it take to poison the air and ground water with nuclear fallout from its exhaust and discarded rocket boosters?

Unfortunately the space idea at this point isn't feasible.

But like I stated before, nuclear waste isn't always going to be the outcome of nuclear energy. We are steadily moving away from hot waste and modern techniques are considerably cleaner. Not perfect, but a resounding improvement. And if we ever get to cold fusion then there will no longer be nuclear waste or mining issues for that matter.

Personally I'd rather be riding the nuclear train than the fossil fuel train. While both have long lasting impacts in their waste products, the nuclear option at least has the unicorn dream of cold fusion maybe being somewhere down the road. Fossil fuel doesn't. Obviously if we could get to some sort of sustainability level with solar, WI d, and wave energy production then we might be in a better position then, but until that day co.es, I wish the US hadn't stopped building g nuclear power plants almost 50 years ago.