in 2032 we will have non-sentient female android robots and in 2052 we will be able to reverse aging. Ray Kurzweil.

barcacel

barcacel

Iron
Joined
Oct 14, 2022
Posts
74
Reputation
208
I noticed that i made an error on my last thread about android robots on the computational price efficiency after reading more of the Koomey's law study
First i just want to talk about why android robots can't have rights if you give them a non-sentient AI
there are 2 types of AI:
a simulated AI: A simulated ai would mimic the behavior of humans (software), but it would not mimic the shape, composition and mechanisms of the human brain (hardware) and therefore would not be sentient
an emulated AI: an emulated ai would mimic the shape, composition and mechanisms of the human brain (hardware) and behavior of humans (software), therefore it would be sentient
http://www.gavinjensen.com/blog/2018/ai-simulation-emulation#:~:text=AI that simulates intelligence is,usage of word “intelligence”.
There have been many series and media portraying android robots as "sentient" or "alive", all of that is bullshit. Why? You cannot replicate sentience by just programming a robot, to replicate sentience you would need to scan the whole human brain and copy it into a machine, even then I don't believe it will be possible because I still think that you need a biological brain to create it.
What makes a human different from a pile of plastic? we are made of cells, machines are made of minerals and non-living matter
A non-sentient android robot will just be a piece of plastic imitating a human because it will not be made of cells but instead of minerals and non-living matter
So, we can have android robots that have a simulated AI because they will not be alive, and they can't have rights because they are not living beings.

We will have android robots that will look indistinguishable from humans in 2032 and reverse aging technologies in 2052 to not die of old age
First let's talk about Ray Kurzweil and then about the dates, thanks to this guy we know the 2032 and 2052 dates. Ray Kurzweil is the most famous futurist, he predicted a lot of things in 1999 for 2009, 2010s, 2019, 2020s, 2030s and 2045. Here is a 2010 paper of him talking about how his 1999 predictions for 2009 and 2010 went:

In every prediction he copes saying that he was just off by some years, so they are right or that they are right because some companies have shown the prototype of the product but in reality, they took like 5-7 years to be launched after the prototype was shown in 2010, If you read all of the 1999 predictions on that 2010 paper i linked called "how my predictions are faring", you can see that every prediction he made in 1999 for 2009 happened in 2015 and every prediction he made in 2004 for 2010 happened in 2017, 99 percent of them were all right but late, there are 2 reasons why this happened:
1-all of his predictions are late by 1.52x due to Kurzweil believing in 1999 and 2004 that computational price efficiency doubled every 12 months but in a 2011 study it was found that it was every 18 months (1.52 years)
2-the slow death of the fifth paradigm (Moore's law) started slowing down technology

1-all of his predictions are late by 1.52x
in the past Kurzweil always said and thought that the computational price efficiency doubled every 12 months as you can see in this video:

In a 2011 study it was found that this figure was wrong and that it was every 18 months (1.52 years)
"Computations per kilowatt-hour doubled every 1.57 years over the entire analysis period, a rate of improvement only slightly slower than that for PCs, which saw efficiency double every 1.52 years from 1975 to 2009 (see Figure 4)"

So this means that the predictions made by Ray Kurzweil will be late by 1.52x, Kurzweil can't admit that he was wrong because he would lose all his credibility, this guy explains it here:


When we increase 2009 by 1.52, we get 2014.2 instead of 2015 and when we increase 2010 by 1.52, we get 2015.72 instead of 2017 because of the second reason:
2009 - 1999 = 10______________________2010 - 1999 = 11
10 x 1.52 = 15.2_______________________11 x 1.52 = 16.72
15.2 + 1999 = 2014.2_________________16.72 + 1999 = 2015.72

2-the slow death of the fifth paradigm (Moore's law) started slowing down technology, this video explains it:

Kurzweil always thought that the sixth paradigm (3d computer chips) would come in 2013 and that there would be no slowing's in technology, that did not happen:
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5067661#:~:text=Dr. KURZWEIL: And,at its limit.
so, to calculate what should have happened in 2014 and 2015 if the slow death of the fifth paradigm of computing never slowed down technology, we can use these graphs i made using the performance and development trendline that Kartik Gada modified in his supercomputing video:
Kdkdkdkdkdkddddkd Screenshot 2023 01 07 212824 Screenshot 2023 01 07 214700
as you can see in the graphs above, everything that happened technologically in 2015 should have happened in 2014.2 and everything that happened technologically in 2017 should have happened in 2015.72 if the slow death of Moore's law never slowed down technology, so now we know why everything that Kurzweil predicted for 2009 and 2010 happened in 2015 and 2017

Now you need to understand that the fifth paradigm will completely die in 2025, the creator of Moore's law said that Moore's law would die in 2025 and every year Moore's law is getting slower:
Dkkddkdkkdd
we know a new paradigm will be created after Moore's law dies because there have already been 5 technology paradigms in the past, Kurzweil has talked about them. here is why i think that we will go back to the original trendline of where we are supposed to be technologically before 2030:
look at this image made by Kurzweil using old data and old sources and look at the year 1960:
Jsjsjjsjs
as you can see there was a huge increase in less than one year in 1960 which implies that a new paradigm can get us back to the trendline very fast, in less than one year, we also have another evidence of it on this other image made by him, look at 1962:
Aoaooaoa
So, I just think that we will get back to the trendline before 2030 and that is why we can use the 1.52x method to calculate things after 2030 without using the performance development graph
I got this idea by reading one of the comments on his supercomputing videos:
Klo


Ok so now we can go back to the 2032 android robot and 2052 reverse aging technologies to not die of old age prediction, now that we have a method to know when a prediction of him will happen
in his 1999 book called the age of spiritual machines on page 107 he predicted that we would have sexbots by the start of the third decade of the new century, which would be 2021:
Lp
i know that the word sexbot does not sound like android robot but in his 2009 book called transcend on page 123 he talked more about what kind of things we would have in 2023 and he talked more about these sexbots:
Ls
so as you can see they will be android robots because they will look indistinguishable from humans (the reason why he wrote 2023 was because he wanted to talk about a year where many other technologies would be there, he didn't only talk about android robots on that book, he talked about other technologies, medical devices and other things that would be there in 2023)
so, we can use the 1.52x method with 2021 because by that time in our timeline the sixth paradigm will be at his full speed, we will be back in the trendline and where we are supposed to be technologically in that trendline, so the method for 2021 would be:
2021 - 1999 = 22
22 x 1.52 = 33.44
33.44 + 1999 = 2032.44
so, we will have android robots in 2032

what about the 2052 reverse aging prediction to not die of old age?
Kkdkdkdkdkddd
so as you can see he says that age reversal is a reality in 2034, 2034 would be 2052:
2034 - 1999 = 35
35 x 1.52 = 53.2
53.2 + 1999 = 2052.2
so as you can see we will be able to reverse aging in 2052
a quarter of a century is 25 years, unfortunately Ray might die of old age before the slow aging technologies that will come in the 2030s (read 2023 in the image above again) and the reverse aging technologies that will come in 2052, because of his predictions being late by 1.52x and the fifth paradigm slowing down things temporarily for him to not even be able to get the slow down aging technologies, we will go back to the trendline before 2030 so we will be able to have slow down aging technologies in the 2030s and reverse aging technologies in 2052
Here is the method for 2023:
2023 - 1999 = 24
24 x 1.52 = 36.48
36.48 + 1999 = 2035.48

(1999) the age of spiritual machines book:
https://jimdo-storage.global.ssl.fa.../THE_AGE_OF_SPIRITUAL_MACHINES_WHEN_COMPU.pdf
(2005) the singularity is near book:
(2009) transcend book:
https://www.docdroid.net/3pBqeUW/transcend-nine-steps-to-living-well-forever-pdfdrive-1-pdf#page=22
(2009) transcend book pdfdrive:
https://www.pdfdrive.com/transcend-nine-steps-to-living-well-forever-e188845476.html

@IwantToLooksMaxx @ascension! @Beastimmung @_MVP_ @Bitch @RICO @BugeyeBigNoseCurry @Gonthar @Serial Coomer @dogeatsgrass @subhuman incel @Mr_Norwood @Enlil @gamma2 @Bezel @AtlasTH
 
  • +1
Reactions: Bobelbrah, FailedNormieManlet, Deleted member 14693 and 2 others
Mirin the effort to correct the details
 
  • +1
Reactions: barcacel
in his 1999 book called the age of spiritual machines on page 107 he predicted that we would have sexbots by the start of the third decade of the new century, which would be 2021:
And where are these robots, while computing power and artificial intelligence have evolved significantly, the actual robotic bodies are still pretty primitive, clunky, move slow, awkward, the batteries are limited, reliability is questionable, one tiny malfunction can cripple the whole robot, etc.
 
2021 is 2032 because all of his predictions are late by 1.52, can you please read the full thread?
Yeah, maybe, but I still don't think in just 10 years the robotic bodies will advance too much, technology doesn't progress uniformly in all fields, while computing power doubles every few years for example, battery technology only improves by a few percent.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Danish_Retard
Thank god for ai being able to summarize this ponderous thread into something that makes sense.

The writer discusses the difference between simulated and emulated artificial intelligence (AI), stating that simulated AI involves mimicking human behavior through software, while emulated AI involves mimicking both the shape and mechanisms of the human brain through hardware. The writer suggests that it is currently not possible to create sentient AI, as it would require scanning and copying the entire human brain into a machine, which they do not believe is possible. The writer also mentions futurist Ray Kurzweil's predictions about the development of android robots and reverse aging technologies, but notes that these predictions may be delayed due to Kurzweil's previous underestimation of the rate at which computational price efficiency improves, and the slowing of technology due to the "slow death" of Moore's Law.
 
Battery technology has very little to do with technology, the more technologically advanced a processor is the less energy it uses, the PS1 uses the same energy as the PS5
You still need more efficient batteries for the rest of the robot - his "brain" is one thing - the processor and software that runs on it, these have evolved a lot indeed, but for his "body" - the arms, legs, electric motors, actuators, wires, batteries, etc. - the evolution of these components has been very slow.

Ohh, and a PS5 consumes around 200W compared to just 3W for a PS1, it has a big, chunky power supply inside, compared to the small adapter of the first generation.
 
You fail to understand that these all problems that can be fixed with a faster processor that uses less energy
And you fail to understand that a robot is more than his "brain" - the CPU, memory and software that runs on it.
Then the only thing we need to do add is a huge adapter and huge power supply for the androids, what is the reason you can't do that with an android robot? Is it gonna explode?
This will seriously limit their range, speed and capabilities.
 
it is all solved by a faster processor that uses less energy
No.
does the huge huge adapter and huge power adapter affect the PS5's range, speed and capabilities?
A PS5 is a fixed device, you connect it to a tv or monitor and play on it, it doesn't walk, run or work like a robot is supposed to do.
 
All of the other shit for the body can be developed by computers or researchers using technology
Maybe, maybe not, these components - electric motors, actuators, batteries, etc. are evolving much slower than the computing power and can delay significantly the development of robots
Look at car technology for example - people thought a hundred years ago that cars will become faster and faster with time, and we will regularly reach hundreds or thousands of mph on highways or that flying cars are the next logical step, but the actual reality is quite different.
 
Did the people that said that had 21 PhDs?
Those are honorary doctorates, they give them to anyone who's famous, it's a PR thing to increase the fame of an university, many celebrities, athletes, musicians, actors, etc. who aren't exactly known for their high IQ have these honorary degrees.
Also....appeal to authority fallacy.
appeal-to-authority-fallacy.jpg
 
wow very interesting thanks for the thread.

But even if we had that in 2032, which is obviously possible, how long will it take for them to become affordable? Computers in the 1972 for example costed 100k
 
  • +1
Reactions: barcacel
It should be available for everyday consumers, there is no information technology (information technology means related to computers) that is not available to everyday consumer, a product will fail if it's not affordable for the the average consumer
I get it but computers were not affordable for the average person until 1990s, 30 years after they have been invented
 
And you fail to understand that a robot is more than his "brain" - the CPU, memory and software that runs on it.

This will seriously limit their range, speed and capabilities.
Theoretically, it would run on a similar amount of power to a human. This means you can power the thing using fuel cell or battery and have the same range as a human. Also, there is no way you would run such an ai using the Neumann architecture so any comparison to a ps5 is pointless. You would probably locally have some sort of advanced processor capable of simulating very complex neural nets along with a high bandwidth internet connection to a powerful ai capable of analyzing data in real-time and cross-referencing to other sex bots. This isn't even mentioning all the insane nanotech that would go into the body.
 
are women gonna try to outlaw them?

that will not happen, but if it happens 90 percent of men and me (i also have autism), will go ER because 90 percent of men will have autism like me in 2032 and will be incels due to having no social skills (autistic individuals tend to have more violent fantasies and bad social skills)

"At its current rate of growth, many have estimated that, by the year 2030, 1 in 2 American boys — 50% — will be diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder."
https://www.cmsri.org/autism/#:~:text=At its current rate of growth, many have estimated that, by the year 2030, 1 in 2 American boys — 50% — will be diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder

View attachment 2033244

we could also create our own country, we can go live to international waters or to space where nothing is illegal

men could take over a country and make it a men only country, we could elect politicians that were pro-non-sentient androids, we could make a new country in an island, we could live in boats or water houses on international waters and we could use a spaceship that is self-sufficient to go live to space when technology is advanced enough.


also, there is no legal reason to outlaw them because they will not be alive if you use a simulated ai for the android robots, because that will make it a non-sentient android robot as i explain above in the thread
If it could perfectly mimic a human then very likely it would be conscious although probably in a very different way to a human. Most likely consciousness is an emergent property of all matter and energy just like information.

I actually agree with you on the space thing. In the future people who want to do weird illegal shit like cloning, genetic experimentation, and radical ai experiments will likely move into space. It's crazy to imagine all the sorts of bizarre transhumanist religious movements and communes which might be living in space stations. Like i've said before, sex robots is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to these sorts of things.
 
Maybe, maybe not, these components - electric motors, actuators, batteries, etc. are evolving much slower than the computing power and can delay significantly the development of robots
Look at car technology for example - people thought a hundred years ago that cars will become faster and faster with time, and we will regularly reach hundreds or thousands of mph on highways or that flying cars are the next logical step, but the actual reality is quite different.
No one who understood basic Newtonian physics ever thought we would reach hundreds or thousands of miles on highways.

Also, flying cars and self driving cars are just starting to hit the market. In some cities now autonomous taxis are commonplace.



 
how many girlfriends have you had? i know that you are not asian, only a nigger would make this type of statement
3.

So making an insightful comment about the nature of consciousness and the future of technology is niggerish behavior?
 
Still no way to get rid of my painful hemorrhoids without extremely painful surgery. Science and tech is trash, they predicted we would have flying cars by now.
 
i really hate being on this forum, i should just let you all kill yourselves or do millions of surgeries while hypergamy is increasing every day only to be rejected, i should just shut up and be happy that i got a brain a billion times betters than yours that saved me and just fucking shut up and fucking leave you alone
Midwit
 
that makes no sense, the only reason why you would be able to back to china is if you came to study to the us, which would make you able to see the blackpill and not let you think like a nigger, if you were born in the us it would make no sense that you would be able to move to china due to it's hard immigration laws, is that the best idea your nigger brain got?
I grew up in the US mostly and I'm not going to tell my whole life story on this shit website.
 
another one nigger? why the fuck would you not? it is because everything that you are fucking saying is invented by your slave nigger brain?
ok man. Funny how instead of making a valid argument you just resort to calling me a black nigger
 
OP IS A RETARDED APE
 
I noticed that i made an error on my last thread about android robots on the computational price efficiency after reading more of the Koomey's law study
First i just want to talk about why android robots can't have rights if you give them a non-sentient AI
there are 2 types of AI:
a simulated AI: A simulated ai would mimic the behavior of humans (software), but it would not mimic the shape, composition and mechanisms of the human brain (hardware) and therefore would not be sentient
an emulated AI: an emulated ai would mimic the shape, composition and mechanisms of the human brain (hardware) and behavior of humans (software), therefore it would be sentient
http://www.gavinjensen.com/blog/2018/ai-simulation-emulation#:~:text=AI that simulates intelligence is,usage of word “intelligence”.
There have been many series and media portraying android robots as "sentient" or "alive", all of that is bullshit. Why? You cannot replicate sentience by just programming a robot, to replicate sentience you would need to scan the whole human brain and copy it into a machine, even then I don't believe it will be possible because I still think that you need a biological brain to create it.
What makes a human different from a pile of plastic? we are made of cells, machines are made of minerals and non-living matter
A non-sentient android robot will just be a piece of plastic imitating a human because it will not be made of cells but instead of minerals and non-living matter
So, we can have android robots that have a simulated AI because they will not be alive, and they can't have rights because they are not living beings.

We will have android robots that will look indistinguishable from humans in 2032 and reverse aging technologies in 2052 to not die of old age
First let's talk about Ray Kurzweil and then about the dates, thanks to this guy we know the 2032 and 2052 dates. Ray Kurzweil is the most famous futurist, he predicted a lot of things in 1999 for 2009, 2010s, 2019, 2020s, 2030s and 2045. Here is a 2010 paper of him talking about how his 1999 predictions for 2009 and 2010 went:

In every prediction he copes saying that he was just off by some years, so they are right or that they are right because some companies have shown the prototype of the product but in reality, they took like 5-7 years to be launched after the prototype was shown in 2010, If you read all of the 1999 predictions on that 2010 paper i linked called "how my predictions are faring", you can see that every prediction he made in 1999 for 2009 happened in 2015 and every prediction he made in 2004 for 2010 happened in 2017, 99 percent of them were all right but late, there are 2 reasons why this happened:
1-all of his predictions are late by 1.52x due to Kurzweil believing in 1999 and 2004 that computational price efficiency doubled every 12 months but in a 2011 study it was found that it was every 18 months (1.52 years)
2-the slow death of the fifth paradigm (Moore's law) started slowing down technology

1-all of his predictions are late by 1.52x
in the past Kurzweil always said and thought that the computational price efficiency doubled every 12 months as you can see in this video:

In a 2011 study it was found that this figure was wrong and that it was every 18 months (1.52 years)
"Computations per kilowatt-hour doubled every 1.57 years over the entire analysis period, a rate of improvement only slightly slower than that for PCs, which saw efficiency double every 1.52 years from 1975 to 2009 (see Figure 4)"

So this means that the predictions made by Ray Kurzweil will be late by 1.52x, Kurzweil can't admit that he was wrong because he would lose all his credibility, this guy explains it here:


When we increase 2009 by 1.52, we get 2014.2 instead of 2015 and when we increase 2010 by 1.52, we get 2015.72 instead of 2017 because of the second reason:
2009 - 1999 = 10______________________2010 - 1999 = 11
10 x 1.52 = 15.2_______________________11 x 1.52 = 16.72
15.2 + 1999 = 2014.2_________________16.72 + 1999 = 2015.72

2-the slow death of the fifth paradigm (Moore's law) started slowing down technology, this video explains it:

Kurzweil always thought that the sixth paradigm (3d computer chips) would come in 2013 and that there would be no slowing's in technology, that did not happen:
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5067661#:~:text=Dr. KURZWEIL: And,at its limit.
so, to calculate what should have happened in 2014 and 2015 if the slow death of the fifth paradigm of computing never slowed down technology, we can use these graphs i made using the performance and development trendline that Kartik Gada modified in his supercomputing video:
View attachment 2031189View attachment 2031196View attachment 2031208
as you can see in the graphs above, everything that happened technologically in 2015 should have happened in 2014.2 and everything that happened technologically in 2017 should have happened in 2015.72 if the slow death of Moore's law never slowed down technology, so now we know why everything that Kurzweil predicted for 2009 and 2010 happened in 2015 and 2017

Now you need to understand that the fifth paradigm will completely die in 2025, the creator of Moore's law said that Moore's law would die in 2025 and every year Moore's law is getting slower:
View attachment 2031223
we know a new paradigm will be created after Moore's law dies because there have already been 5 technology paradigms in the past, Kurzweil has talked about them. here is why i think that we will go back to the original trendline of where we are supposed to be technologically before 2030:
look at this image made by Kurzweil using old data and old sources and look at the year 1960:
View attachment 2031224
as you can see there was a huge increase in less than one year in 1960 which implies that a new paradigm can get us back to the trendline very fast, in less than one year, we also have another evidence of it on this other image made by him, look at 1962:
View attachment 2031225
So, I just think that we will get back to the trendline before 2030 and that is why we can use the 1.52x method to calculate things after 2030 without using the performance development graph
I got this idea by reading one of the comments on his supercomputing videos:
View attachment 2031226


Ok so now we can go back to the 2032 android robot and 2052 reverse aging technologies to not die of old age prediction, now that we have a method to know when a prediction of him will happen
in his 1999 book called the age of spiritual machines on page 107 he predicted that we would have sexbots by the start of the third decade of the new century, which would be 2021:
View attachment 2031231
i know that the word sexbot does not sound like android robot but in his 2009 book called transcend on page 123 he talked more about what kind of things we would have in 2023 and he talked more about these sexbots:
View attachment 2031233
so as you can see they will be android robots because they will look indistinguishable from humans (the reason why he wrote 2023 was because he wanted to talk about a year where many other technologies would be there, he didn't only talk about android robots on that book, he talked about other technologies, medical devices and other things that would be there in 2023)
so, we can use the 1.52x method with 2021 because by that time in our timeline the sixth paradigm will be at his full speed, we will be back in the trendline and where we are supposed to be technologically in that trendline, so the method for 2021 would be:
2021 - 1999 = 22
22 x 1.52 = 33.44
33.44 + 1999 = 2032.44
so, we will have android robots in 2032

what about the 2052 reverse aging prediction to not die of old age?
View attachment 2031238
so as you can see he says that age reversal is a reality in 2034, 2034 would be 2052:
2034 - 1999 = 35
35 x 1.52 = 53.2
53.2 + 1999 = 2052.2
so as you can see we will be able to reverse aging in 2052
a quarter of a century is 25 years, unfortunately Ray might die of old age before the slow aging technologies that will come in the 2030s (read 2023 in the image above again) and the reverse aging technologies that will come in 2052, because of his predictions being late by 1.52x and the fifth paradigm slowing down things temporarily for him to not even be able to get the slow down aging technologies, we will go back to the trendline before 2030 so we will be able to have slow down aging technologies in the 2030s and reverse aging technologies in 2052
Here is the method for 2023:
2023 - 1999 = 24
24 x 1.52 = 36.48
36.48 + 1999 = 2035.48

(1999) the age of spiritual machines book:
https://jimdo-storage.global.ssl.fa.../THE_AGE_OF_SPIRITUAL _MACHINES_WHEN_COMPU.pdf
(2005) the singularity is near book:
(2009) transcend book:
https://www.docdroid.net/3pBqeUW/transcend-nine-steps-to-living-well-forever-pdfdrive-1-pdf#page=22
(2009) transcend book pdfdrive:
https://www.pdfdrive.com/transcend-nine-steps-to-living-well-forever-e188845476.html

@IwantToLooksMaxx @ascension! @Beastimmung @_MVP_ @Bitch @RICO @BugeyeBigNoseCurry @Gonthar @Serial Coomer @dogeatsgrass @subhuman incel @Mr_Norwood @Enlil @gamma2 @Bezel @AtlasTH

The biggest issue with sex bots or "realistic" robots is the "uncanny valley effect" look it up if you don't know what it is.

But the tldr is that the closer something comes to be humanlike the more the brain registers deformities. the gap betweeen 99.9% human like and 100% is greater then the gap between humanlike and completely alien.


So either the robot will have to be nearly identical and fool the human brain which is no simple task or it will look like a creepy down syndrome thing and the brain will register its not realistic. This is why surgery is hard even for celebs to pull off proportions and naturalism are everything for the human brain. If they can bridge the gap and truly make it accurate enough to fool the brain then its possible but otherwise it will always be weird and it will never have the appeal of a real girl. I've seen modern sex bots and it was weird asf. Anime girls made into sex toys always look uncanny. With current tech it would be better to use VR and just have a fleshlight or something
 
Last edited:
they will look indistinguishable from a real human female in 2032

also, many people think that as the robot gets closer to look human the robot will look worse because of the uncanny valley but no, it works the other way around, this works like the blackpill, ugly robots will be seen as ugly but handsome robots will be more and more appealing each time they get closer to look human, you can see that here:

View attachment 2040183



View attachment 2040186

Yes in theory it can be broken... But its going to be very difficult you can make something 99.99% accurate but that .001% will fuck with the human brain. It has to be nearly perfect in every way. Modern sex toys don't come close. Are technology on this front hasn't improved much at all people have developed more realistic figures in Rome then what we have now.


I am not saying it isn't impossible but 2030 is a bit of a stretch more like 2060
 
Also just curious man you on adderall rn? I do the same thing when I am lol
 
it doesn't need to be realistic, the uncanny valley shit is not real, is just some western media shit to make you sacred of female androids

I don't know even know why the fuck i even try this shit, all of you will believe me when we get back to the computing trendline in 2026-2029, but now you guys think i'm crazy, i should just leave the forum and come back when the sixth paradigm of computing gets us back to the trendline (i talk about this in the thread), but i need to give back the favor and tell other men about this, i wasn't the one who discovered about androids, someone told me about them in one video, so i feel like i need to pay back the favor
Its much more realistic that there will be AI gfs on the metaverse. Robotics and physical presence is something lacking.


I think in 2030 you will be able to talk to a virtual anime girl with oculus headsets
 
nab we are robots ourselves and ai is living our cells use electricity to communicate just like wires
 
no, i just used some medication for ADHD for like 5 months 2 years ago but i stopped because i think that they lower your full potential, less anxiety and more concentration is not good because that is not your true self and instead of daydreaming about the future and thinking millions of things in class while the teacher is speaking you start paying attention to class and having less anxiety. I just believe that i'm more intelligent or i have a million more ideas without those jewpills
Odd adhd meds make me anxious not the other way around.
 
You should stop taking those jew pills, they make you daydream less and make you more like an npc
I am not on them rn but they just make me incredible obsessive about one topic. To be fair though I agree this topic is important. Part of me hopes the AI thing dies but in either case it will be exciting to watch
 
Cells are alive, minerals aren't. Minerals are not made of cells, nor are cells made out of minerals.
cells are made of minerals tho.
 
Have you actually looked up information about what a mineral is and what a cell is? Any introductory chemistry textbook will explain to you what the definition is of a mineral. One of the key aspects of it is that the molecules making it up repeat in a regular, crystallized lattice...all the same molecule throughout, and the molecules remain fixed in position...it's a very stable structure (at least at the molecular level). Now, look up in any introductory biology textbook what a cell is, and you'll see that it is a very complex structure containing many different types of molecules that are not in a crystal lattice. The cell is made up of smaller components called organelles, and each type of organelle has a different structure and function. All of the different parts of the cell function together as a complex unit, somewhat like an assemby line (it's as good as analogies get) to result in the overall function of the cell. A cell is a very dynamic structure at the molecular level.

Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/minerals-vs-cells.100864/
yeah and sodium chloride is a mineral
 
We are 10-15 years behind of where we are supposed to be technologically, due to Moore's law slow death slowing down technology but the sixth paradigm will get us back to where we are supposed to be in the trendline technologically, can you read my thread?
muh sixth paradigm cope.
you fail to consider malthusian cycles. this means we are in population decline, due to high mutational load from less harsh selection pressures proceeding the industrial revolution which provided free health care for all.
as a result, per capita genius is rapidly declining and the flynn effect has been in reverse since 1970s. as a result, the probability of your 6th paradigm occuring becomes less and less likely with each passing year.
additionally, this malthusian decline is quickened by rapidly increasing selection pressures since 2020 in the form of the greatest economic crisis since the 1930s and global vaccine mandates which would cause rapidly involving variants not alike mareks disease in chickens. to to the rapid increase of selection pressures since 2020, the all cause mortality will rapidly begin to spike even more and the reversed flynn effect wont stabilize for some time.
this means, tick tock...even more per capita genius decline and 6th paradigm cope even more a distant dream.
 
Born to late to get a wife born to early to get a wife.
 

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top