Yes, true. But I am still very concerned. After all, people predicted that once we had discovered DNA, we would have a cure for cancer and other diseases in short order. It took much longer than expected - the problem turned out to be harder than we realized and we are not even there yet - but I don't think anyone doubts that we will get there. And the same applies to AI - don't you think?

Yes, indeed there is much to learn about the brain. You are right - and I understand - that the brain is more than a neural net. From your response, I think you know my point though: that it is a machine, and given time, we will figure it out - at least in terms of how it learns, how it models reality, how it infers things, how it creates new ideas, etc. And I think that will happen sooner than most people think: we are very far from understanding it now, but progress is accelerating, and our ability to introspect the brain is accelerating as well. Some of the largest countries - the US included - have initiated large efforts to decompose the function of the brain. So while I think that the scenarios depicted in sci-fi are simpleminded and silly (though entertaining), we still face an existential threat. True AI - if we attain it - is something that cannot be undone or controlled. We are truly playing with the ultimate Pandora's Box.

We already know that it is possible to have a neural network that is as smart as the human brain: our own brains prove it. Within a couple of decades it will be possible to build machines that do exactly what the brain does, neuron for neuron. Will they be conscious? Who knows - but it doesn't matter - because they will be able to reason, and plan, and have goals. This is clearly an existential risk: that is why very smart researchers are sounding the warning. If we don't listen, we have only ourselves to blame when it comes to pass. I recommend the book by Hugo DeGaris, "The Artilect War". DeGaris is a thinking machine researcher - he builds these systems. His predictions are pretty dire indeed.

I don't care about cost, personally. When I do watch TV shows, I don't want commercials, and I don't want to watch junk. I watch what I carefully choose. So higher cost is not an issue. Quality is. I want to be able to cherry pick what I want to watch, and if I have to go to a hundred different sources, that is fine: I will discover which sources are worth checking. That is what I do now. I don't watch cable TV at all: I watch shows on Netflix and Amazon and streamed via Comcast - never cable. So cable has no impact on me as it is, except that I have to pay for it but never use it.

It is not rich versus commoners, when it comes to patronage: it is rich versus government. The government is the commoner's mechanism for patronage, in addition to other mechanisms such as non-profit entities. But when it comes to esoteric things like science and space travel, non-profit entities are generally too weak: one needs government, or inspired rich people. Unfortunately, our government in the US has failed us with regard to space travel, and many other things. Today, our government and both main parties are controlled by moneyed interests. This won't change unless the role of money can be reduced in election campaigns. Until then, things will remain broken. Efforts that require great vision, such as space exploration, will remain on the back burner. It then falls to rich people to take the lead - as is happening.

Yes, I think you are right. It will take people who have a personal motivation. E.g., Elon Musk wants to go to Mars himself. And many people feel motivated because they feel that humans need to explore. Their goal is not profit. Great voyages of exploration have always required patronage, just as the sciences and the arts have always required patronage.

But the government won't play a role in it.

The question is therefore moot.

When lightning hits.... That part of the world is known for really massive lightning - lightning with far more power than average lightning.

It is. But it works best if there is a filter on who can join. Bad apples spoil most utopian social constructs.

Actually, I meant cooperative anarchy - not socialism. I think that is what you were referring to, otherwise known as self organization.

True, if you have a group of people who are filtered based on their attitudes, then socialism could work. A good example might be the Burning Man festival. In that case, I think there is an implicit filter in that those who go to the trouble to attend are like-minded ?

Indeed! And when they eventually abandon their fake city, it will combine into the trillions of tons of floating garbage that we already have!

I can't wait: software-driven gadgets everywhere - and all buggy, hackable, and requiring constant updates just when you need them. What a wonderful world it will be!

And no doubt they will import labor and pay them subsistence, since no one in this floating nation will be willing to collect the trash. So we will have floating favelas.