My random thoughts

[funkervogt]

We have ED-209 levels of killer drone AI and Smartgun levels of aiming technology in the best tanks.

[funkervogt]

Robots will be super accurate at throwing objects at things.
https://youtube.com/shorts/H9E23UaSkRc?feature=share

[funkervogt]

A big advantage intelligent machines will have with respect to space exploration is immunity from alien diseases and parasites. A scenario like something from the Alien movies couldn't happen (can't impregnate a machine).

Intelligent machines would also be stronger and more durable than humans, so they could cope with hostile aliens much better.

[eacao]

A big advantage intelligent machines will have with respect to space exploration is immunity from alien diseases and parasites. A scenario like something from the Alien movies couldn't happen (can't impregnate a machine).

Intelligent machines would also be stronger and more durable than humans, so they could cope with hostile aliens much better.

I think that people will settle & live on Mars, and in the near-term also work on the Moon on a rotational manner, but deep-space will be reserved for unmanned machines. Primarily, this is due to the radiation problem -- underground colonies on Mars can make perfectly suitable shelters for our complex and wet biochemistry, but intelligent spacecraft making use of ISRU will be able to live natively in space like sealife. They'll be able to exploit the resources of the main belt and gas giant systems without the complexities involved in ferrying around a complex and delicate life support chamber or sheltering organic occupants from GCRs. Their processing / intelligence hardware might be buried in the centre of the ship beneath thick radiation shielding, but by-and-large their hulls will be perfectly content with the space environment.

At this stage, it seems to be common knowledge that AI will in the near-future be able to outperform a hypothetical human astronaut at relevant problem solving (likely by quite a lot), so a hypothetical Martian colony might deploy fleets of space-native mining vessels to plough the asteroid belt on their behalf.

Of course, this also applies to hypothetical interstellar missions to contact alien biomes, as you mentioned.

[funkervogt]

With a better understanding of the human genome, we'll be able to reconstruct a person's appearance with only a DNA sample. That means their face but also everything else, like their private parts.

Someday, there will be a trade in surreptitiously gathered DNA samples from celebrities, politicians, and others. In part they will be used to reconstruct the nude appearances of those people, with applications involving sex machines (real or virtual), blackmail, and just plain public humiliation.

[Cyber_Rebel]

A common type of sex bot will be a replica of a character from a movie, video game, or TV series that a human developed a crush on. It would be weird and interesting to see android copies of characters, complete with their personality profiles and outfits, walking around.

This is what Character.AI could eventually become later down the road. In regard to laws as to what one could do with replicas, there might be some sort of predefined contract signed as a form of consent. Breaching the contract could lead to fines or barring from accessibility to other replica services, in the case of those who cause harm.

I don't want to liken it to a social credit system, but the idea of being a decent human being at least could be factored. Not hard to imagine such androids giving humans "ratings" like how we give Uber drivers.

[Powers]

I heard someone say that they like ChatGPT because it could function as a "translator" that made everyone sound smart. I'd prefer a personal assistant AI that could make most people's words shorter and simpler. In trying to sound smart, too often people use bigger words or more words than they need to, and they also use rhetoric to mask or to bloat whatever their true idea or message is.

If you also equipped your personal assistant AI with the ability to read human biometrics and to do real-time psychoanalysis, most human interaction could be boiled down to even simpler levels that would make our animal natures and true intentions clear. So many long-winded and oblique statements could be translated to things like:

"I don't like you."

"You made me mad."

"I want to have sex with you."

"I don't want to do it."

I am in agreement with your comment.

I am inclined to align myself with the assertion that you have put forth. :mrgreen:

Does this "abolition of all biological suffering" involve uplifting animals to be as intelligent as we are, a la Disney's Zootopia? Or something far more profound than that?

Furthermore, humans are the only species that will someday have it within its means to end suffering among all life forms on Earth. The details of how we could do that have been explored by philosopher David Pearce, and I recommend his website: https://www.abolitionist.com/

It would be fitting and just if, after dispensing so much death and destruction on our environment, we became its saviors and inaugurated a new era of peace and bliss for all animals. If we saved enough of them over a long enough timespan, we will exceed the suffering we inflicted on their ancestors during our species' earlier history. 

Best thing we can do for animals is leave them alone and let them have enough wild nature to survive as they always have. We should only interact to save them from the harm we ourselves have caused them.

What if they decide to Roko's basilisk (or exterminate) us?

[funkervogt]

A common trope in alien movies is for the hostile organism to use air ducts to stealthily move around a space ship or futuristic building, letting it pop out of nowhere to kill or capture human crewmen. Intelligent machines won't need to breathe oxygen or anything else, so there will be no ductwork in space ships and structures meant for them, meaning dealing with alien intruders will be easier.

[lechwall]

Why does anything exist at all?

[funkervogt]

Why does anything exist at all?

Why not?