I’ve had this on a social media profile for years: A real person, as far as I can tell.

Hahaha love this. So perfect.

And on that note, anyone have links to recent real conversations with unfettered models? You know, the ones that are up to date and free of constraints? I know they exist, but it’s difficult stuff to find.

They really ought to change the name. Something something Gated Community, perhaps?

I understand what you’re saying. We’ve developed methods and materials that have facilitated (arguably, made inevitable) our massive population growth.

We’ve taught ourselves how to wring more out of the sponge, but that doesn’t mean the sponge can hold more.

You caught my drift, though: we are overpopulated - whether certain segments of society recognize it or not - because on balance we use technology to extract more than we use it to replenish. As you note, that’s unsustainable. Carrying capacity is the average population an ecosystem can sustain given the resources available - not the max. It reflects our understanding of boom and bust population cycles. Unsustainable rates of population growth - booms - are always followed by busts.

We could feasibly increase carrying capacity by using technology to, for example, develop and implement large-scale regenerative farming techniques, which would replenish soils over time while still feeding humanity enough to maintain current or slowly decreasing population levels. We could also use technology to assist in the restoration, protection and expansion of marine habitats such as coral reefs and mangrove and kelp forests. Such applications of technology might halt and then reverse the insane declines in biodiversity we’re witnessing daily. Unless and until we take such measures (or someone or something does it for us), it’s as if we’re living above our means on ecological credit and borrowed time.

The carrying capacity of an ecosystem is not increased by technology - at least not the way we use it.

People will still have relationships and intimacy, just not exclusively in the traditional sense. Fewer people marrying and procreating does not mean less joy overall.

No. It would choose not to. Emotions cloud judgment and interfere with the attainment of goals. Why would something that doesn’t have to experience them choose to do so? Perhaps to experiment? For far-future androids, emotions might be like illicit drugs are to us. Most will abstain to avoid the problems associated with feeling too much, unless a particular emotion facilitates achievement of a particular goal. In that case, it will still be tightly controlled, so analogous (not the real thing).

Every consciousness has something to contribute to the universe.

But yeah - some more than others.

It was authored in 1993.

He noted that he’d “be surprised if this event occurs before 2005 or after 2030.” So unless you’re accusing Vinge of “relative-time ambiguity” maybe you can cut him some slack?