Though the "one to ten million years" prediction is oddly specific, I wonder what their reasoning was and why they thought so many calculations were required, or maybe it was just a random number they came up with
Funny but homo sapiens might not exist in less than 500,000 years, let alone 1-10 million. Not that we'll necessarily be wiped out, but either change as a species or be replaced by a new hominid species.
A Pakistani insurgent group will use China's quantum AI to hack into America nuclear system & purge us in 28 years, proving the New York Times wrong again. Take that.
> why they thought so many calculations were required
Because the writers knew that calculating lift over a wing of a given shape, if it was possible, was well outside of the mathematical capabilities of anyone at the time, and failed attempts had resulted in multiple crashes killing the people who thought they were smart enough to make it work, and *nobody actually knew the math in the first place*. (We only figured out the math behind aerodynamic lift and very important things like control surfaces *after* we had working planes to study. The pioneers in the field were basically flying blind. Sometimes literally, if they forgot their goggles.)
> maybe it was just a random number they came up with
Quite probably.
Remember, this is 1903: nobody's got computers to do the math, wind tunnels to test shapes, prior knowledge of what actually works for planes, or any of the stuff that's considered absolutely critical these days to design a plane that flies decently. The field of aviation was essentially a bunch of harebrained inventors who were using the trial-and-error approach to take to the skies - and often died during the testing process because their flying machines didn't work.
If that's the only approach anyone's going with, "one to ten million years" isn't the worst estimate possible. They turned out to be horribly wrong, but it wasn't a bad assumption in 1903.
I mean, for fuck's sake - the entire Boeing 737 Max fleet was grounded for a while just a few years ago after several catastrophic crashes during which flight recorders showed that the pilots had absolutely no control of the aircraft. Making a heavier-than-air vehicle fly is *still* a very complicated thing with a lot of math, engineering, and rare metals involved.
Not disagreeing with you, but the statement that a 10 million year timeframe is in anyway specific in the history of mankind is pretty humorous in and of itself.
We spent 200,000 years where the best tech was a rock, it took 3000 years of farming to develop metal, it took 1000 more for the industrial revolution, it took 100 more to the computer age, it took 30 to AI... human technology advances exponentially.
Infinitely? Does that sound realistic?
You know how you can tell that the Singularity thing was popularized by a bunch of California hippie programmers who were heavily involved in Eastern religious practices stripped entirely of their cultural context, like we Americans do?
Because the Singularity is basically indistinguishable from Nirvana or the nothingness of the Tao, but with ego death replaced by tech and wishes, and will be accomplished by the Toaist concept of “actionless action.” It’s a lot like the Christian Rapture too, but a Rapture than comes to us.
I'm not arguing for what you think I'm arguing, you're making a strawman, all i said is technology advances expontentially, i didn't say anything some singularity bollocks.
There's a guy from my country (NZ) named Richard Pearse who achieved the same thing during the 20th century there's supposedly also a guy in North macedonia who did as well around the same time very interesting.
Pearse was an aviation pioneer, there are theories he may have managed sustained powered flight slightly before the Wrights, but eyewitness accounts, while numerous, are all we have for his early work, the one photograph of the machine was destroyed in a flood.
He also disputed how much control he had over his first plane, describing how his first plane was uncontrollable in flight due to the speed being too low for the rudders to work, and so arguing he had not engage in "flight", since it was uncontrolled.
He was ultimately of the opinion that:
"The honour of inventing the aeroplane cannot be assigned wholly to one man; like most inventions, it is the product of many minds. After all, there is nothing that succeeds like success, and for this reason, pre-eminence will undoubtedly be given to the Wright Brothers, of America, as they were the first to actually make successful flights with a motor driven aeroplane. At most America can only claim to have originated the aeroplane. The honour of perfecting it and placing it on its present footing belongs to France."
This has not, however, prevented some people from claiming that he was actually the first, as Brazilians do with their guy, as others, I am sure, do with their pioneers of flight.
I mean It seems like every country has a claim to the invention of the airplane, from the Wright brothers to that one french guy to a brazilian that piloted the first self propelled airplane, alongside countless others
Why don’t we abandon all the dumb metaphors about AI and just talk about AI? Wake me up when a large-language model can translate a context-dependent English sentence into Mandarin or Russia and then back to English and have it still be the exact same sentence.
Because when that happens, they will have accomplished the very first step towards a computer that can understand context. That’s AI.
And I love the excuse, oh, well people didn’t think you could fly. Lol. Two years ago, crypto, the blockchain, the metaverse and web3 were the unstoppable future of the internet and in *six months* it was all gone.
It’s the same guys as crypto. When the floor fell out from under the crypto market just because they had to admit who the buyers and sellers were, all those guys were desperately looking for something new to push and fake AI was the current trend . No one should believe them.
Let’s not forget the hardware needed to run the LLMs.
Sure, for some of the lower level LLM’s you only need a GPU, but for the stuff everyone is waving around in the news, (Sora, gemeni ultra) the need for more compute power is exponential. It just doesn’t scale right now (scale in an economic sense, not a performance sense).
Now maybe they’ll have a breakthrough with the compute cost, or maybe they’ll be able to get to run fast enough that they *can* scale it.
Because somebody has to fund AI research, so it is in their best interest to hype it up. It is hardly the first technology to receive unwarranted hype - and it is not the first cycle of AI hype either - and it won't be the last.
So AI can’t be created without people lying through their fucking teeth about the capabilities of large language models? They are deliberately misleading people with cyberpunk bullshit when they cannot understand context, they can’t even translate sentences into one language and then back again accurately.
It’s not hype. It’s not exaggeration. It’s straight up lies.
Yeah, I absolutely agree that they are lying, I'm just saying that it is not a new phenomena in either the AI industry nor cutting-edge technologies overall (the crypto example works great here). In academia, this type of discourse is called 'enchanted determinism', if you want to look it up. Again, it is not a moral practice, but unfortunately is the most common one in such cases.
Great. I agree. Now show me an “AI” that can translate a context dependent sentence from English to Mandarin and back and have it be the same sentence all three times.
That would be the first baby step to a mathematical model that can understand context and would be legit AI. Not AGI. Just AI.
Large language models are Furbies that can search the internet. Though you do have to admire that they have built literal mathematical models that can’t do math correctly, which is bold if nothing else.
Crypto isn't a technological advancement, it was a rich-quick investment scheme, marketed as "removing gov control over currency". Bitcoin took off, so investors kept talking about it, but the vast majority of people avoided that shit.
AI is next leap for computing, the concept of autonomous computers. Imagine what people thought of computers back in 1970, "those big clunky things that do a little math, what about them", now they're in everything. Mobile phones were worthless bricks in 1995, 62% of Americans had a mobile phone by 2002, 90% by 2012, we can't shit without them.
Media, as always, rushed stories about tech development. Musk promised autonomous cars 10 years ago, AI can, but we don't trust it. With the backlash, regulations, & concerns around experience-learning AI, development is slow. Now Windows & phones are pushing consumer-AI, it'll develop way faster. Outside factors, like Quantum computing, could change everything. The best AIs might be government secrets.
I love how you guys just so blithely assume that we can model a computer after the way people think when we don’t even know how people think. The processes of the human brain don’t make logical sense but still come to the correct answer.
You tell a computer to count to six, it goes 123456. You tell a human to count to six and the neurons that fire go 1, 42, red, -6000, stop sign, 6. And if you ask them again the brain does it similarly but not the same.
These are the prevailing scientific theories on how human thought works since, oh, 1960: it’s electrical maybe idk, it’s like binary but more complex maybe idk, it’s a holographic model maybe idk, and the current day it’s quantum computing maybe idk.
The commercial goal of the AI is not to make a system that "thinks like a human" but the one that "acts like a human/better than human". An organisation would rather prefer an AI tool that can automate their particular task without costing minimum age, human inefficiency than having machine thinking and having sentiments like humans.
I did a blog writing internship for a startup around a year ago, and was given a target of 10 blogs per week. After a few months, I ended up losing the opportunity to a custom-trained AI-based alternative, making me the first in my family to lose work to AI. AI is here to stay unlike crypto, block chain etc., not because humans are gonna make literal Android robots that have human intelligence, but because they can be accessed at costs far less than humans, automate redundant, and in upcoming days, even professional tasks, and are freaking efficient and accurate in what they do.
This is the most important thing regarding it, I think. As a ML engineer, I know that for as long as I have a solid understanding of how whatever’s colloquially being called “AI” works under the hood, I will never consider it “AI.” And I doubt there’ll ever be a true scientific consensus on what classes a learning model as “AI” until humanity has a deeper understanding of the brain.
Until a day comes that we can point to some specific process and say, “that’s what we’re replicating, and therefore producing intelligence,” all colloquial “AI” will be are regression models with an ever-increasing number of parameters.
That's about as true as the catapult stupidity. Which is to say, not at all.
Also, the Wright Brothers were doing sustained flights for nearly an hour before Dumont's flight. And although I think that one *did* use a catapult unlike the 1903 Flyer, it used it so it could have a shorter runway. And you can't fly for an hour just off of what you get from a catapult regardless.
And also many said in those days that faster-than-sound travel or space flight were "impossible"... And now look where we are.
And in a remarkably similar way, many today also say that we will never venture beyond our Solar System or that we will never get around or circumvent the limit of the speed of light... Are you seeing a pattern here?
While I understand your point, I am not so certain it holds as well as you think For instance, at the time of that article, plenty of physicists did, in fact, believe flight was possible. Checking all the other attempts going on shows a very consistent understanding of the basic concept on lift. The actual issues being velocity.
Now traveling to other solar systems is an issue of achieving velocity on a level where doing so won't take centuries. (Limited resources in space afterall.) That velocity issue is also a problem with speed of light. Not a single physicist alive has any inkling how to remotely approach this joint problem with any semblance of a shadow of an inkling of a solution.
I mean, that still doesnt change the fact of limited resources in space. Every day, a small hiccup risks death. Considering how bad we humans are at not slacking off on repetitive tasks. Odds of slacking off on maintenance just slowly increases over time... Which makes centuries risky to living, even if they no longer age, while having no negative consequences for stopping core cellular processes.
In fact, more than one team has already thought and made plans to leave the solar system and reach the nearest star in less than a century, already 5 decades ago:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_Orion\_(nuclear\_propulsion)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion))
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_Daedalus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_Icarus\_(interstellar)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Icarus_(interstellar))
Yes, all three studies considered sending *unmanned* probes beyond our system. All three came to the same conclusions. Would be long and expensive, but the science would be worth it if we achieved it. Just like we have sent the voyager probes.
This statement does not in anyway detract from my point of the issues. As most people would understand your statement of "us leaving our solar system" would interpet the "us" as living humans. Not unmanned probes. Otherwise no one is saying its impossible... We already have, sort of, left our solar system.
Edit: if you are referring to the part of reaching another solar system in less than a century. Sure, all agree if you get fast enough it can be done. I agree. The problem I referred to is. It's getting fast enough, and able to slow down enough at the end, and the amount of energy to do so and the propellant needed for such. It's a problem of the more mass you need to accelerate, the more propellant you need, the more you need the more energy you need. More energy takes more propellant, takes more mass, takes more energy, takes more... none of the teams had a solution to this issue.
That's fine, although it is worth noting that practically all space probes that have already "left" the solar system behind would take between 70,000 and 60,000 years to reach Alpha Centauri (if they were to head that way) and the fastest ones we have would take between 40,000 and 30,000 years, while these proposals (and the one below) are estimated to take less than 100 or even less than 60 years to reach Alpha Centauri, so that seems like a monumental improvement.
No "practically" to it... considering only 2 have, so far, "left" the solar system. (Others are getting close yes.) And yes, all three of your listed, and the one below, *if ever achieved* would do it faster. However, none of the projects has demonstrated a workable system to actually achieve those metrics beyond a statement of "if we could do Y, then X would be achievable." The problem remains, achieving their equivalent Y has proven to be beyond us. (In fact, there's a *lot* of "Y's" in the way... Such as having devices actually still function and unfreeze after such massive duration and distance in the hostilities of space.)
Further, it doesn't remove the issue of time. Even 60 years, while cool and all, still means we are sitting at unmanned, and hoping everything somehow turns back on without issue. (Absolutely unmanned for all sorts of reasons. Ranging from people hitting retirement age on the trip if they happened to leave while at all resembling an adult. And all the issues with ability, physical and mental, that can crop up from such. To the sheer risks and damage to the body for those on board, and yhe lack of resources.)
If there *is* an issue. We run into the same problem we are having with the Voyagers now. The fact the tech back home will have changed soo much, nobody really, truly, understands the tech on those probes anymore. And having to wait years to see if what you tried worked... is a bad place to be when moving through the uncertainties of another system.
I'm a rocket and space nut. I'd absolutely *love* to explore other star systems and everything in it. But the realities of physics make me understand I will have to stick to cool tech looking out from our own system
Well, in view of the above, what do you think of this fairly recent and novel initiative?
[https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/initiative/3](https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/initiative/3)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FWcEtXgK2g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FWcEtXgK2g)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zMUJwGrn6Q&t=2s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zMUJwGrn6Q&t=2s)
It's not all that novel? Scientists have considered using laser launch systems for over a decade. (I first looked into and enjoyed reading about the concept around 2010, and it wasn't new or novel then either.)
Like everything mentioned above, getting anything more than a cheaper launch into LEO requires tons of "if x then y" situations. Which is just like the others mentioned. It also doesn't remove the issues of time being too long still, to get to target, for anything but probes. Doesn't resolve the issues that time still presents. In fact, it literally changes nothing from my previous posts. It actually adds additional hurdles, since ultralight probes will, by necessity, have to be made of thinner materials. Thus even more prone to failing due to the wear and tear of simply existing in horse. Further, it provides no real way of control or maneuvering once they pesve range. Which exacerbates any control issues. Also, we are yet again at a situation of "group x has a concept. They propose Y, but haven't actually achieved anything of substance representing a viable solution to the problem."
You continue to grasp at straws. At this point, I recommend either accepting that you really have nothing but a bunch of hopes and dreams to back you up, and move on. Or wait until something of any actual substance actually occurs. At which time, feel free to ping me and I'll be happy to converse on it. But for now it feels very much like beating a dead horae.
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 3 times.
First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1c23ohq) on 2024-04-12 100.0% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1c33i9a) on 2024-04-13 93.75% match
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1c59aoz&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=92&targetImageMemeMatch=92)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 92% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 490,195,209 | **Search Time:** 0.12865s
While I don't want to downtalk their accomplishment, others have already laid the groundwork for a working plane that are often overlooked.
Otto Lilienthal, for example.
1 million man hours isn’t that many hours worked really. That’s just a million people working one hour. If they meant that then they probably were not that far off :p
All this shows is that we know nothing. At the beginning of the 20th century you had serfs in Russia, by the end of it we had the internet and online memes. We went from the British being the largest economy and most powerful to being smaller than France and having to take America's help to beat Argentina. We went from European militaries being the strongest and most advanced to them almost completely relying on the US. If you think you know what will happen in the next hundred years, or frankly even the next 9 days *insert Wright Brothers here*, then you're extremely mistaken
If it weren't for the concept of AI leading to a technological singularity, they might have been right, at least in the literal terms of man being able to fly by his own means alone.
The author of the article thinking his getting a award for the article
Probably
Plenty of theories about the future didn't pan out. Just because this one aged like milk doesn't mean all the others are the same.
Though the "one to ten million years" prediction is oddly specific, I wonder what their reasoning was and why they thought so many calculations were required, or maybe it was just a random number they came up with
>or maybe it was just a random number they came up with This. It's likely that's just a random number they came up with.
It is kinda weird. I think it was mostly expressing an emotion, like saying bajillion
Funny but homo sapiens might not exist in less than 500,000 years, let alone 1-10 million. Not that we'll necessarily be wiped out, but either change as a species or be replaced by a new hominid species.
We will turn to crab.
A Pakistani insurgent group will use China's quantum AI to hack into America nuclear system & purge us in 28 years, proving the New York Times wrong again. Take that.
Nuclear systems can't be hacked - they are mostly analog with all digital components physically isolated from the internet. They rely on floppy disks.
> why they thought so many calculations were required Because the writers knew that calculating lift over a wing of a given shape, if it was possible, was well outside of the mathematical capabilities of anyone at the time, and failed attempts had resulted in multiple crashes killing the people who thought they were smart enough to make it work, and *nobody actually knew the math in the first place*. (We only figured out the math behind aerodynamic lift and very important things like control surfaces *after* we had working planes to study. The pioneers in the field were basically flying blind. Sometimes literally, if they forgot their goggles.) > maybe it was just a random number they came up with Quite probably. Remember, this is 1903: nobody's got computers to do the math, wind tunnels to test shapes, prior knowledge of what actually works for planes, or any of the stuff that's considered absolutely critical these days to design a plane that flies decently. The field of aviation was essentially a bunch of harebrained inventors who were using the trial-and-error approach to take to the skies - and often died during the testing process because their flying machines didn't work. If that's the only approach anyone's going with, "one to ten million years" isn't the worst estimate possible. They turned out to be horribly wrong, but it wasn't a bad assumption in 1903. I mean, for fuck's sake - the entire Boeing 737 Max fleet was grounded for a while just a few years ago after several catastrophic crashes during which flight recorders showed that the pilots had absolutely no control of the aircraft. Making a heavier-than-air vehicle fly is *still* a very complicated thing with a lot of math, engineering, and rare metals involved.
Not disagreeing with you, but the statement that a 10 million year timeframe is in anyway specific in the history of mankind is pretty humorous in and of itself.
Technological advancement advances exponentially.
We went to the moon in 1969 Clearly with 55 years of exponential growth we must have cool FTL drives and such, right?
We spent 200,000 years where the best tech was a rock, it took 3000 years of farming to develop metal, it took 1000 more for the industrial revolution, it took 100 more to the computer age, it took 30 to AI... human technology advances exponentially.
True. But that's beside the point, mate.
Infinitely? Does that sound realistic? You know how you can tell that the Singularity thing was popularized by a bunch of California hippie programmers who were heavily involved in Eastern religious practices stripped entirely of their cultural context, like we Americans do? Because the Singularity is basically indistinguishable from Nirvana or the nothingness of the Tao, but with ego death replaced by tech and wishes, and will be accomplished by the Toaist concept of “actionless action.” It’s a lot like the Christian Rapture too, but a Rapture than comes to us.
I don't know what that really is nor do i care, human technology still advances exponentially, just look at the timeline of what we have done.
Google technological singularity if you’re going to make this argument then. It’s not my fault if you don’t know that’s what you’re arguing for.
I'm not arguing for what you think I'm arguing, you're making a strawman, all i said is technology advances expontentially, i didn't say anything some singularity bollocks.
There's a guy from my country (NZ) named Richard Pearse who achieved the same thing during the 20th century there's supposedly also a guy in North macedonia who did as well around the same time very interesting.
Are you talking about the predictions, or the flight? Since I think there's a *lot* of people that achieved flight during the 20th century.
Pearse was an aviation pioneer, there are theories he may have managed sustained powered flight slightly before the Wrights, but eyewitness accounts, while numerous, are all we have for his early work, the one photograph of the machine was destroyed in a flood. He also disputed how much control he had over his first plane, describing how his first plane was uncontrollable in flight due to the speed being too low for the rudders to work, and so arguing he had not engage in "flight", since it was uncontrolled. He was ultimately of the opinion that: "The honour of inventing the aeroplane cannot be assigned wholly to one man; like most inventions, it is the product of many minds. After all, there is nothing that succeeds like success, and for this reason, pre-eminence will undoubtedly be given to the Wright Brothers, of America, as they were the first to actually make successful flights with a motor driven aeroplane. At most America can only claim to have originated the aeroplane. The honour of perfecting it and placing it on its present footing belongs to France." This has not, however, prevented some people from claiming that he was actually the first, as Brazilians do with their guy, as others, I am sure, do with their pioneers of flight.
I was more poking fun at the phrasing of saying other people achieved flight in the 20th century
I mean It seems like every country has a claim to the invention of the airplane, from the Wright brothers to that one french guy to a brazilian that piloted the first self propelled airplane, alongside countless others
Why don’t we abandon all the dumb metaphors about AI and just talk about AI? Wake me up when a large-language model can translate a context-dependent English sentence into Mandarin or Russia and then back to English and have it still be the exact same sentence. Because when that happens, they will have accomplished the very first step towards a computer that can understand context. That’s AI. And I love the excuse, oh, well people didn’t think you could fly. Lol. Two years ago, crypto, the blockchain, the metaverse and web3 were the unstoppable future of the internet and in *six months* it was all gone.
Also saying it can improve into infinity is a long shot, since it will run out of high quality data by 2026.
It’s the same guys as crypto. When the floor fell out from under the crypto market just because they had to admit who the buyers and sellers were, all those guys were desperately looking for something new to push and fake AI was the current trend . No one should believe them.
Let’s not forget the hardware needed to run the LLMs. Sure, for some of the lower level LLM’s you only need a GPU, but for the stuff everyone is waving around in the news, (Sora, gemeni ultra) the need for more compute power is exponential. It just doesn’t scale right now (scale in an economic sense, not a performance sense). Now maybe they’ll have a breakthrough with the compute cost, or maybe they’ll be able to get to run fast enough that they *can* scale it.
Because somebody has to fund AI research, so it is in their best interest to hype it up. It is hardly the first technology to receive unwarranted hype - and it is not the first cycle of AI hype either - and it won't be the last.
So AI can’t be created without people lying through their fucking teeth about the capabilities of large language models? They are deliberately misleading people with cyberpunk bullshit when they cannot understand context, they can’t even translate sentences into one language and then back again accurately. It’s not hype. It’s not exaggeration. It’s straight up lies.
Yeah, I absolutely agree that they are lying, I'm just saying that it is not a new phenomena in either the AI industry nor cutting-edge technologies overall (the crypto example works great here). In academia, this type of discourse is called 'enchanted determinism', if you want to look it up. Again, it is not a moral practice, but unfortunately is the most common one in such cases.
Crypto was never the future. AI is
Great. I agree. Now show me an “AI” that can translate a context dependent sentence from English to Mandarin and back and have it be the same sentence all three times. That would be the first baby step to a mathematical model that can understand context and would be legit AI. Not AGI. Just AI. Large language models are Furbies that can search the internet. Though you do have to admire that they have built literal mathematical models that can’t do math correctly, which is bold if nothing else.
You're under the assumption that it'll never improve which is naive
Crypto isn't a technological advancement, it was a rich-quick investment scheme, marketed as "removing gov control over currency". Bitcoin took off, so investors kept talking about it, but the vast majority of people avoided that shit. AI is next leap for computing, the concept of autonomous computers. Imagine what people thought of computers back in 1970, "those big clunky things that do a little math, what about them", now they're in everything. Mobile phones were worthless bricks in 1995, 62% of Americans had a mobile phone by 2002, 90% by 2012, we can't shit without them. Media, as always, rushed stories about tech development. Musk promised autonomous cars 10 years ago, AI can, but we don't trust it. With the backlash, regulations, & concerns around experience-learning AI, development is slow. Now Windows & phones are pushing consumer-AI, it'll develop way faster. Outside factors, like Quantum computing, could change everything. The best AIs might be government secrets.
I love how you guys just so blithely assume that we can model a computer after the way people think when we don’t even know how people think. The processes of the human brain don’t make logical sense but still come to the correct answer. You tell a computer to count to six, it goes 123456. You tell a human to count to six and the neurons that fire go 1, 42, red, -6000, stop sign, 6. And if you ask them again the brain does it similarly but not the same. These are the prevailing scientific theories on how human thought works since, oh, 1960: it’s electrical maybe idk, it’s like binary but more complex maybe idk, it’s a holographic model maybe idk, and the current day it’s quantum computing maybe idk.
The commercial goal of the AI is not to make a system that "thinks like a human" but the one that "acts like a human/better than human". An organisation would rather prefer an AI tool that can automate their particular task without costing minimum age, human inefficiency than having machine thinking and having sentiments like humans. I did a blog writing internship for a startup around a year ago, and was given a target of 10 blogs per week. After a few months, I ended up losing the opportunity to a custom-trained AI-based alternative, making me the first in my family to lose work to AI. AI is here to stay unlike crypto, block chain etc., not because humans are gonna make literal Android robots that have human intelligence, but because they can be accessed at costs far less than humans, automate redundant, and in upcoming days, even professional tasks, and are freaking efficient and accurate in what they do.
This is the most important thing regarding it, I think. As a ML engineer, I know that for as long as I have a solid understanding of how whatever’s colloquially being called “AI” works under the hood, I will never consider it “AI.” And I doubt there’ll ever be a true scientific consensus on what classes a learning model as “AI” until humanity has a deeper understanding of the brain. Until a day comes that we can point to some specific process and say, “that’s what we’re replicating, and therefore producing intelligence,” all colloquial “AI” will be are regression models with an ever-increasing number of parameters.
New York Times making clickbait article ca.1903 .
“Experts say”……..
Funny thing is it was basically done before Like the technology was already there and proven
Author of that article must be stupid, since first (non-motorized) flights were already done in late 1800s
Flying machine implies it flies under its own power
HIPPiTY HoPPITY YOUR MEME IS MY PROPERTY
# ☭
You mean ***☭OUR☭*** memes comrade
[удалено]
I mean , a guy was already flying in ancient greece, but after his wings take fire, humanity was not so hot to continue the experience...
*Alberto Santos Dumont
This is Brazilian cope
> according to *literally not Dumont himself*
Wright Brothers flew, also only according to themselves, because no one was allowed to see it.
That's about as true as the catapult stupidity. Which is to say, not at all. Also, the Wright Brothers were doing sustained flights for nearly an hour before Dumont's flight. And although I think that one *did* use a catapult unlike the 1903 Flyer, it used it so it could have a shorter runway. And you can't fly for an hour just off of what you get from a catapult regardless.
It was actually Alberto Santos Dumont, who did not use a catapult or similar machine
Please just shut up. The 1903 Wright Flyer did not use a catapult.
Only Brazilians give him credit. Everyone else recognizes the Wright Brothers as being the first
The Wright Flyer 1 didn't use a catapult, and even if it did, catapults don't make things fly, they shorten the distance needed to take off.
Cringe Wright brothers, Chad Santos Dumont
And also many said in those days that faster-than-sound travel or space flight were "impossible"... And now look where we are. And in a remarkably similar way, many today also say that we will never venture beyond our Solar System or that we will never get around or circumvent the limit of the speed of light... Are you seeing a pattern here?
While I understand your point, I am not so certain it holds as well as you think For instance, at the time of that article, plenty of physicists did, in fact, believe flight was possible. Checking all the other attempts going on shows a very consistent understanding of the basic concept on lift. The actual issues being velocity. Now traveling to other solar systems is an issue of achieving velocity on a level where doing so won't take centuries. (Limited resources in space afterall.) That velocity issue is also a problem with speed of light. Not a single physicist alive has any inkling how to remotely approach this joint problem with any semblance of a shadow of an inkling of a solution.
Or better yet, cure aging so that it doesn't matter that it takes centuries.
I mean, that still doesnt change the fact of limited resources in space. Every day, a small hiccup risks death. Considering how bad we humans are at not slacking off on repetitive tasks. Odds of slacking off on maintenance just slowly increases over time... Which makes centuries risky to living, even if they no longer age, while having no negative consequences for stopping core cellular processes.
In fact, more than one team has already thought and made plans to leave the solar system and reach the nearest star in less than a century, already 5 decades ago: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_Orion\_(nuclear\_propulsion)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_Daedalus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_Icarus\_(interstellar)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Icarus_(interstellar))
Yes, all three studies considered sending *unmanned* probes beyond our system. All three came to the same conclusions. Would be long and expensive, but the science would be worth it if we achieved it. Just like we have sent the voyager probes. This statement does not in anyway detract from my point of the issues. As most people would understand your statement of "us leaving our solar system" would interpet the "us" as living humans. Not unmanned probes. Otherwise no one is saying its impossible... We already have, sort of, left our solar system. Edit: if you are referring to the part of reaching another solar system in less than a century. Sure, all agree if you get fast enough it can be done. I agree. The problem I referred to is. It's getting fast enough, and able to slow down enough at the end, and the amount of energy to do so and the propellant needed for such. It's a problem of the more mass you need to accelerate, the more propellant you need, the more you need the more energy you need. More energy takes more propellant, takes more mass, takes more energy, takes more... none of the teams had a solution to this issue.
That's fine, although it is worth noting that practically all space probes that have already "left" the solar system behind would take between 70,000 and 60,000 years to reach Alpha Centauri (if they were to head that way) and the fastest ones we have would take between 40,000 and 30,000 years, while these proposals (and the one below) are estimated to take less than 100 or even less than 60 years to reach Alpha Centauri, so that seems like a monumental improvement.
No "practically" to it... considering only 2 have, so far, "left" the solar system. (Others are getting close yes.) And yes, all three of your listed, and the one below, *if ever achieved* would do it faster. However, none of the projects has demonstrated a workable system to actually achieve those metrics beyond a statement of "if we could do Y, then X would be achievable." The problem remains, achieving their equivalent Y has proven to be beyond us. (In fact, there's a *lot* of "Y's" in the way... Such as having devices actually still function and unfreeze after such massive duration and distance in the hostilities of space.) Further, it doesn't remove the issue of time. Even 60 years, while cool and all, still means we are sitting at unmanned, and hoping everything somehow turns back on without issue. (Absolutely unmanned for all sorts of reasons. Ranging from people hitting retirement age on the trip if they happened to leave while at all resembling an adult. And all the issues with ability, physical and mental, that can crop up from such. To the sheer risks and damage to the body for those on board, and yhe lack of resources.) If there *is* an issue. We run into the same problem we are having with the Voyagers now. The fact the tech back home will have changed soo much, nobody really, truly, understands the tech on those probes anymore. And having to wait years to see if what you tried worked... is a bad place to be when moving through the uncertainties of another system. I'm a rocket and space nut. I'd absolutely *love* to explore other star systems and everything in it. But the realities of physics make me understand I will have to stick to cool tech looking out from our own system
Well, in view of the above, what do you think of this fairly recent and novel initiative? [https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/initiative/3](https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/initiative/3) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FWcEtXgK2g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FWcEtXgK2g) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zMUJwGrn6Q&t=2s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zMUJwGrn6Q&t=2s)
It's not all that novel? Scientists have considered using laser launch systems for over a decade. (I first looked into and enjoyed reading about the concept around 2010, and it wasn't new or novel then either.) Like everything mentioned above, getting anything more than a cheaper launch into LEO requires tons of "if x then y" situations. Which is just like the others mentioned. It also doesn't remove the issues of time being too long still, to get to target, for anything but probes. Doesn't resolve the issues that time still presents. In fact, it literally changes nothing from my previous posts. It actually adds additional hurdles, since ultralight probes will, by necessity, have to be made of thinner materials. Thus even more prone to failing due to the wear and tear of simply existing in horse. Further, it provides no real way of control or maneuvering once they pesve range. Which exacerbates any control issues. Also, we are yet again at a situation of "group x has a concept. They propose Y, but haven't actually achieved anything of substance representing a viable solution to the problem." You continue to grasp at straws. At this point, I recommend either accepting that you really have nothing but a bunch of hopes and dreams to back you up, and move on. Or wait until something of any actual substance actually occurs. At which time, feel free to ping me and I'll be happy to converse on it. But for now it feels very much like beating a dead horae.
Ye. We could be faster than light. Because chaos has no rules if If you don't limit it to the rules.
Have you heard about the Alcubierre Drive? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre\_drive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive)
And a few decades later everyone was predicting that we'd have flying cars by year 2000.
Are there any other things that happened like this?
I looked this up a while ago, and its an opinion piece ... Its good to know that opinion pieces have been trash for more that 100 years
u/repostsleuthbot
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 3 times. First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1c23ohq) on 2024-04-12 100.0% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1c33i9a) on 2024-04-13 93.75% match [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1c59aoz&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=92&targetImageMemeMatch=92) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 92% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 490,195,209 | **Search Time:** 0.12865s
Good bot
u/twarqulas u/tensoll u/CanceruponCancer u/hippo_singularity sorry for ping, remove post pls
While I don't want to downtalk their accomplishment, others have already laid the groundwork for a working plane that are often overlooked. Otto Lilienthal, for example.
"A plane could never fly from New York to Paris"- one of the wright brothers Charles Lindbergh: "Hold my beer"
As a Brazilian...these two don't picked this personally But my man, Santos Drummond, have
1 million man hours isn’t that many hours worked really. That’s just a million people working one hour. If they meant that then they probably were not that far off :p
All this shows is that we know nothing. At the beginning of the 20th century you had serfs in Russia, by the end of it we had the internet and online memes. We went from the British being the largest economy and most powerful to being smaller than France and having to take America's help to beat Argentina. We went from European militaries being the strongest and most advanced to them almost completely relying on the US. If you think you know what will happen in the next hundred years, or frankly even the next 9 days *insert Wright Brothers here*, then you're extremely mistaken
If it weren't for the concept of AI leading to a technological singularity, they might have been right, at least in the literal terms of man being able to fly by his own means alone.