Ok nice to hear! Which one of the 8 picks your interest the most?
Chrononaut
joined 4 months ago
Yes conversations cards, where what you read it’s pretty much what you read in one of the 8 prompts you can see on the website. So far I have about 50-60. But not all of them are high quality or interesting or somehow the right ones
Fair enough about the incel comment. The idea is more about letting people “mess around”m as I don’t believe in anybody having much ability to predict the future more than couple of months ahead. But I see the value of letting people engage in this kind of conversation, and people I have been doing this so far found it a very interesting way to discover more about their opionions and values, the one of others and also about what the future might bring, and this sometimes help shift perspective on the present. Thanks for the book recommendation and for the Atomically Precise Manufacturing, also explored nicely in Life 3.0 btw.
The website is for now a way to start engaging in a conversation with AI, but what I am focussing on is to let people engage in conversation with each other IRL.
Thanks a lot for this very valuable input. The intent of my project is not to work in the space of predicting the future, but more in giving agency to people from different areas of expertise to engage in the practice of imagining the future, which sets in motion very interesting conversations about people’s value, how they see society today and of course also (sometimes) valuable inputs on what the future might hold.
Thanks for the comment. Which book or other sources do you recommend? So far I have read Life 3.0, The Coming Wave, Superintellingence, The Singulariy is nearer. And about prompts I refer to the ones I have elaborated further on this website I made https://www.22ndcenturyhub.com/. Extreme longevity it’s what I meant with Amortality, superintellingence is probably the defyining theme of the next era but I find it a difficult topic to let people engage with intellectually, since our cognitive abilities are literally too underdeveloped to be able to discuss about it in a way that really leads somewhere (love the paradox of it and also I agree this is a very bad reason to not engage in the conversation, a conversation we must continuously have).
I am creating several scenarios for the sessions I faciliate. I would love to run this one here!
IMAGINE: In 2125, AI and robotics have advanced to create perfect android replicas of deceased loved ones. These replicas not only look and sound like the original person but also behave, emote, and adapt with startling realism, drawing from extensive digital and personal archives. Families embrace them for comfort, while others view them as unsettling echoes of the past. Society is divided on whether these androids are a gift of connection or a distortion of human life.
If you had the chance to bring back a loved one as an AI, would you?
I am creating several scenarios for the sessions I faciliate. I would love to run this one here!
IMAGINE: In 2125, AI and robotics have advanced to create perfect android replicas of deceased loved ones. These replicas not only look and sound like the original person but also behave, emote, and adapt with startling realism, drawing from extensive digital and personal archives. Families embrace them for comfort, while others view them as unsettling echoes of the past. Society is divided on whether these androids are a gift of connection or a distortion of human life.
If you had the chance to bring back a loved one as an AI, would you?
IMAGINE: In 2124, androids and humans coexist seamlessly. You’re sitting in a cozy cafe, watching two people have an intimate, almost lovers' conversation. One of them has a small glowing emblem on their wrist, an unmistakable sign that they are an android, required by law. Despite this, their connection feels real, deep, and natural, as if they’ve been in each other’s lives for years. The emblem is the only thing separating them from being human, but the conversation, full of quiet affection, feels indistinguishable from any other intimate exchange.
Given the growing movement to remove the emblem, would you support it or feel it should stay?)
IMAGINE: In 2124, androids and humans coexist seamlessly. You’re sitting in a cozy cafe, watching two people have an intimate, almost lovers' conversation. One of them has a small glowing emblem on their wrist, an unmistakable sign that they are an android, required by law. Despite this, their connection feels real, deep, and natural, as if they’ve been in each other’s lives for years. The emblem is the only thing separating them from being human, but the conversation, full of quiet affection, feels indistinguishable from any other intimate exchange.
Given the growing movement to remove the emblem, would you support it or feel it should stay?
I found the source: https://www.amazon.com/Economic-Transformations-General-Purpose-Technologies/dp/019929089X . And I added a screenshot of the table of content (available as a sample on amazon)
I am reading The New Wave, the last book from Microsoft AI CEO Suleyman. He mentioned that a massive study pegged down the General Purpose Technologies to be only 24 in the last 10000 years (so fire is not included for example), but I can’t find the study. Does anybody know the study? This is the list btw:
Domestication of plants Domestication of animals Smelting of ore Money Wheel Writing Bronze Iron Water wheel Three-masted sailing ship Printing Factory system Steam Engine Railways Steamship Internal combustion engine Electricity Automobile Airplane Mass production Computer Lean production Internet Biotechnology
EDIT: I found the source https://www.amazon.com/Economic-Transformations-General-Purpose-Technologies/dp/019929089X
Discussion around the liability of virtual avatars in virtual reality.
Nice thanks a lot for sharing, also about New Babylon. I can imagine. One of the reason why I use 100 as a timeframe is to give permission to participants to really let their imagination go “wild”. I understand the value of also doing the next 5 to 25.