We once built pyramids, massive castles, temples and churches which took hundreds of years to build. We don't build those things any more. Same happened to music and art. There's this eternal sloppification of everything, although at the same time things get on average better and cheaper for more people to enjoy. Quantity beats quality, i.e. capitalism optimizes for scalability.
The end game is quite sad, which will be some kind of neural device which just directly manipulates brain signals for happiness, and everything physical will be just gray goo. It's more scalable to make you think the world is beautiful, than to actually make it beautiful. We are almost there already, because we experience the world through a screen, which shows us happy things, while we care less and less about the real world around us.
It's extremely disrespectful to call the people from minority and diminishing cultures racist or white supremacist for protecting their own culture. Birth rate / demographic / cultural shifts are real problems. Elon has never talked about "white people" or their superiority. These issues have nothing to do with skin color. Same issues are faced by many asian countries as well.
>> Elon has never talked about "white people" or their superiority
I would encourage you to try to avoid making such easily falsifiable claims, and put at least some token effort into your arguments. I was able to find the below with less than five minutes of searching.
He has also repeatedly advanced a version of replacement rhetoric (e.g. claiming Democrats import immigrants to change power via the census), which is essentially a repackaging of the Great Replacement idea, i.e. a racist conspiracy centered on replacing white populations with those from other races and ethnicities. You can, for example, read the transcript of his interview with Don Lemon.
So yes, Elon does in fact frequently talk about white people. Even when not explicitly mentioning them, he means them. For example when he says people should have more babies, he specifically means white people: https://newrepublic.com/article/181098/elon-musks-weird-obse...
>> Same issues are faced by many asian countries as well.
I find your comparison of this issue to issues faced by various Asian countries to be pretty odd, as it does not stand up to critical scrutiny. Asian countries' demographic crises are about internal low fertility and rapid aging, not about being "replaced" by outsiders. Indeed, the arithmetic makes the comparison impossible: Japan, China, South Korea all have extremely tiny foreign populations. Therefore, pointing to Japan/Korea/China's low birth rates to sanitize "replacement" talk is a bad-faith pivot.
I don't see how you conclude that Elon is so focussed on white people. From the articles you posted, it seems more about culture rather than skin color.
The only times he seems to talk about "white" people is when these people are being prejudged for their skin color.
Demographic change can be caused by just a low birth rate, which is more of an economic issue, but it can also be combined with immigration, which may result in changing culture, i.e. "replacement". This issue is currently mostly faced by people who are white Europeans, but these people also represent many different local cultures. Not to mention that Japan and South Korea have also been increasing their immigration, although it has been quite low so far.
All kinds of people have equal right to defend their own culture. It doesn't mean that they're supremacist or racist, even if they think that their culture is better than some other culture. It's only supremacist if it aims to destroy, repress or subject other people, by advocating discrimination and violence.
Thus, "make more white babies" is not supremacist or racist. As isn't calling out violence against white people in South Africa.
These are survey results, not actual memory test results. They answered positively to having "serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions”.
I'd bet $1000 bucks that these people don't have actual memory problems.
Dogs can already talk using buttons and great apes can talk with sign language. This seems feasible, maybe even without a microchip, just with non-invasive reading of brain waves.
How about AFI - artificial fast idiot. Dumber than a baby, but faster than an adult. Or AHI - artificial human imitator.
This is bad definition, because human baby is already AGI when it's born and it's brain is empty. AGI is the blank slate and ability to learn anything.
That "blank slate" idea doesn't really apply to humans, either.
We are born with inherited "data" - innate behaviors, basic pattern recognition, etc. Some even claim that we're born with basic physics toolkit (things are generally solid, they move). We then build on that by being imitators, amassing new skills and methods simply by observation and performing search.
Sure, there's lots of inbuilt stuff like basic needs and emotions. But still, baby doesn't know anything about the world. It's the ability to collect data and train on it that makes it AGI.
That's wrong. It knows how to process and signal low carbohydrate levels in the blood, and it knows how to react to a perceived threat (the Moro reflex).
It knows how to follow solid objects with its eyes (when its visual system adapts) - it knows that certain visual stimuli correspond to physical systems.
Could it be that your concept of "know" is defined as common sense "produces output in English/German/etc"?
No, I totally agree that there's all kinds of innate knowledge, but it's very similar for humans and animals. I don't think this knowledge is intelligence. My point was that a baby is already an AGI, and it shouldn't require a lifetime of learning to become one. Also, if intelligence is just problem solving (like an IQ test) then it should be independent of knowledge.
The end game is quite sad, which will be some kind of neural device which just directly manipulates brain signals for happiness, and everything physical will be just gray goo. It's more scalable to make you think the world is beautiful, than to actually make it beautiful. We are almost there already, because we experience the world through a screen, which shows us happy things, while we care less and less about the real world around us.
reply