We are leaving behind a world of wonders, of AI and robots, things that were only dreamed of a century ago.
Is there a social disruption? Certainly. Whenever there is a massive shift in technology it is inevitable.
It happened with industrial revolution, but it gave prosperity to everyone eventually, even if there were social upheavals in the process.
The same will happen again. There will be a decade or two of chaos at least. The population needs to contract.
Better farming and medicine allowed for a very large work force. AI and robotics are removing the need for it. Change is painful.

I don't think there is a need to make laws. It's the natural human instinct after a certain degree if intellectual maturity to have fewer progeny because they see how complex life now is.

China was criticized to breed like rabbits once too, but look at them now. With development comes lower fertility. That also applies to developed parts of India and middle east.

Why do you need human brain models? They are replacing for tasks for now, not your whole life.
They are more energy efficient than humans for many tasks. A small 30B, and sometimes an 8B model, can code faster and better than an average coder. That does not take a lot of energy.
Eventually though, we expect full human level models to be more energy efficient than humans. That's not too many years away.

Claude code will write a lot more code than a human in a day.
Silicon is already more efficient than wetware for a very large number of tasks.
Our brains aren't meant for the kind of work we do.
What do you think is more efficient to multiply 2 large numbers, you are a tiny calculator?
Training a model has about the lifetime carbon output of 4 average people in US. That's training, not inferencing.

He isn't using his models, we are.

No need to disappear or need Thanos. Just have fewer progeny.
It's easy, cheaper, you will have more money and time, and the planet benefits.
You do have control over how many more people YOU make.

> ubisoft is in fact not in your house with a gun to you head demanding you play assasins creed 15 but if someone else enjoys the "woke nonsense" who are you to complain, just dont play it, let other people enjoy things, nothing is ruined for you.

Isn't that exactly what happened?

Setting aside the absolute purist position of Stallman, the point of the copyright law was to give protections to the creators with the understanding that the created works would enter the public domain so that they can constitute a common culture. This was initially 14 years, which was quite reasonable, that later turned into life + 70 years, that is the cause of distrust in that law.

If you polled non-teenagers, I doubt that the majority would suggest a 100 year copyright protection was a fair period. Laws should reflect the consensus of fairness, not behind the scenes deals with politicians by organized power centers.

> gamers suck, the worst and most annoying and most entitled group of fans who never know what they want and demand everything

The customer is always right.

It's not a monolithic group. Almost 50% belong to it. The gaming marketplace has a lot of choice. So studios actually have to compete. They should be glad that their customers are letting them know exactly what they want and if they can't, they will lose business to someone who can. That's the essence of a free market, no?

> all they demand is whatever the next trash from unisoft has

They are not, which is why Ubisoft is crashing to the ground.

> while not paying any attention to the entire mid and indie level scene where there are also really good movies being made

But that is exactly what is happening. Indie segment has had a resurgence because AAA has lost the plot. Indie segment is set to double over the next 5 years while Ubisoft is going underground. That sounds exactly like what you want.

Early adopters of computers did not get much of a return of investment either: expensive machines, each vendor had their own ecosystem, far fewer features than today, employees had no prior skills.

It's being comfortable with someone who rants about his personal political views that don't align with me.
James Watson was humanity's finest. His contributions defined science. He said a few controversial things, late in life. I felt the response was excessive. It's not as if he actively harmed anyone. He said words, disagreeable things, over things he had no power to change, .........in his 90s.
The cancel culture should at least make exceptions to those with outsized contributions to our species.
Any one in their 90s earned the right to be cantankerous, just as it is normal for little children to throw tantrums.

Or... people change. We become cynical as we age.
He had a lot going wrong in his later life.
I just remember him for the artist he was in his early career.

s/is/has/

I agree with all that.
Underpowered studies are a bane in medicine and nutrition research is ruined the reputation of science among lay audience.

I disagree. I see both sides. Medicine and the computational side.

Research in medicine is full of con-founders, inadequate samples, and imperfect experiments. The confidence you bring from clean and sophisticated methods and analyses misleads you in interpreting messy evidence (I understand that you say that education research is similar). I care as much or more about where the research was conducted than what they wrote in the paper because most research in medicine is plain wrong in its conclusions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The statistical methods used medical studies are relatively much simpler than in say, engineering. That's not where gotchas are. So we need robust studies, a convergence of evidence, and meta-analyses from competent centers.