It will for sure.
In the short term.
The problem is the implants can and very likely will cause very serious complications in the long term.
My SO is a neurologist who visibly cringes wherever I mention brain implants as we discuss emerging tech (my wheelhouse).
It’s not the advertisers doing that, it’s the publishers.
The advertiser has no real say in how a publisher decides to pimp their audience other than lining up with cash on hand like an eternally and unhealthily addicted John.
In fact, on the advertiser side it’s mostly a prisoner’s dilemma driving their addiction, pushed to spend money on poorly converting and too wide channels out of fear that if they don’t and their competitors do that they’ll lose market share.
Advertisers suck for a variety of other reasons, but let’s not turn a blind eye to the publisher greed either.
Advertisers would absolutely love to augment your reality with ads or even just the ability to accurately confirm you’ve actually watched a traditional ad along with how you “felt” about it.
Your reality is already augmented with ads most places you look, and advertisers already do have significant ability to accurately identify how a sample feels about the ads.
Most don’t bother because they don’t actually care, and because it’s easier and cheaper to just run an ad mix self-optimizing around sales results or conversions than to try and over-engineer the advertising impact.
Anyone betting on neural implants to make money because of ‘advertising’ is going to lose a lot of money themselves.
Yes, though it’s also worth noting that there seems to be a reverse effect of 2016 where Trump was underrepresented in polls from actual votes to now where he seems overrepresented compared to actual results.
I suspect for the same reason in opposite application.
In 2016 it was embarrassing to be pro-Trump, and so a lot may have said “undecided.” Now, particularly in conservative areas or households, it could be outright dangerous not to claim you are for him on a phone poll.
How many households have a fanatical pro-Trumper but other members planning to secretly vote against him who would never say as such on the phone to a pollster?
I definitely think anyone rational should be fighting tooth and nail to prevent the catalyst to the fall of democracy, but the situation may not actually be as dire as it seems and people’s apathy in the face of what seems an unavoidable tragedy is probably misplaced - this is very much avoidable and primary polls were off by double digits for Trump in many places.
It’s not like climate change where we really are fucked. This one is likely still up in the air.
I hope that the international community refuses to acknowledge the seized land or borders having changed.
If it’s not ok for Putin to do, it shouldn’t be ok for Bibi.
It’s not worth arguing with the folk that push this narrative.
If they are as poorly informed to make the argument it’s likely in large part because of an affinity for the concept greater than an affinity for knowledge of any details surrounding it.
So providing a counterpoint or more details just falls on willfully deaf ears.
To be fair though, the blame falls more on proselytizers deafening so many ears with their bullshit than on the people with such an acquired distaste for the canonical Jesus that they feel the need to throw out historical Jesus with the bathwater. I definitely get the sentiment, even if the historical Jesus became one of my hyperfocus interests over the past few years.
After that, it’s largely survivorship bias, with every hint of writing about him being preserved, transcribed, recreated, or invented from whole cloth, and anything from his contemporary itinerant preachers being ignored or suppressed.
Not quite. In fact, there’s a rather significant survivorship bias around the versions of Jesus. Literally the very earliest primary documents involve someone known for persecuting Christians telling Christians in an area he has no authority to persecute that they should abandon other versions of Jesus they accepted or other gospels in favor of the version he claimed based on spiritual visions of someone he never met in life.
We have nothing but fragments recorded by its critics of the Gospel of the Egyptians, for example, and the Gospel of Thomas we only have because of a single person burying it in a jar around the time it became punishable by death to possess.
The version of Jesus with female disciples that was talking about Greek atomism and Epicurean proto-evolutionary thought is actually super interesting historically given the overall philosophy, but it’s barely extant and only is because of archeological discoveries after the church lost effectively mega-monarchal status to just become a mega corporation instead.
And even in the modern era discoveries the church has any purview over like the Mar Saba letter abruptly go missing before it can be further validated by scholars.
The survivorship around “other versions” of Jesus look like they were conducted by Stalin with a two millennia reach. It involved literally burning down the successor to the library of Alexandria (and with it sources potentially related to a “Gospel of the Egyptians”).
…I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they came into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world empty.
But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they will change their ways.
Because you aren’t following “the Spirit” (aka listen to your religious leaders dogmatically and tell yourself you are correct because you misinterpret your confirmation bias as spiritual guidance).
‘True’ Christianity was probably something radically different from what survived the filter of initially Jerusalem’s influence and then later Rome’s.
At this point, it’s just a grab bag of “pick your own Christianity” with a high likelihood none of them are 100% a reflection of the original.
Given the figure that most closely matches the projected boogeyman in something like 2 Thess 2 was Paul himself, they’ve been deceived for nearly two millennia now.
At this point, gravitating to a narcissist grifter is just par for the course.
Yes, I definitely am. It’s just that compared to the shit show of 2020 that’s not a very high bar.
But what I’d really prefer he’d focus on is how much better I’ll be in another 4 years.
Luckily MAGA was there for him to be Putin his place.
Exactly this, many times over.
Most tools with legitimate uses also have unethical uses.
Yes. In general most of what we think we know about the emperors in terms of anecdotes are suspect relative to positive or negative biases in sources.
It’d be kind of like history fans in 4024 talking about George Washington and cherry trees.
Well it looks like there’s a recent drop for normal Oreos down to $5.49 from $5.99: https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B078PDK5B5
Doesn’t seem to have transferred to Double yet, but there’s hope for your pancreas’s demise yet!
I mean, there are good uses as well. Just as an example:
- Providing helpful information: People are looking for information to reduce their environmental footprint. Fuel-efficient routing in Google Maps uses AI to suggest routes that have fewer hills, less traffic, and constant speeds with the same or similar ETA. Since launching in October 2021, fuel-efficient routing is estimated to have helped prevent more than 2.4 million metric tons of CO2e emissions — the equivalent of taking approximately 500,000 fuel-based cars off the road for a year.
- Predicting climate-related events: Floods are the most common natural disaster, causing thousands of fatalities and disrupting the lives of millions every year. Since 2018, Google Research has been working on our flood forecasting initiative, which uses advanced AI and geospatial analysis to provide real-time flooding information so communities and individuals can prepare for and respond to riverine floods. Our Flood Hub platform is available to more than 80 countries, providing forecasts up to seven days in advance for 460 million people.
- Optimizing climate action: Contrails — the thin, white lines you sometimes see behind airplanes — have a surprisingly large impact on our climate. The 2022 IPCC report noted that contrail clouds account for roughly 35% of aviation’s global warming impact — which is over half the impact of the world’s jet fuel. Google Research teamed up with American Airlines and Breakthrough Energy to bring together huge amounts of data — like satellite imagery, weather and flight path data — and used AI to develop contrail forecast maps to test if pilots can choose routes that avoid creating contrails. After these test flights, we found that the pilots reduced contrails by 54%.
https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/sustainability/report-ai-sustainability-google-cop28/
Even something like household phantom power currently uses more energy than AI at data centers.
I’m all for putting pressure on corporate climate impact and finally putting to rest the propaganda of personal responsibility dreamt up by lobbyists, but I don’t know that ‘AI’ is the right Boogeyman here.
No, it won’t.
A number of things:
It only leads to collapse if all organic data representing long tails of data variety disappear. Which hopefully throws water on x-risk doomers as AI killing humanity would currently be a murder suicide.
And if we take both your comments together, we end up with “should we get rid of the cap so the rich pay a fair share or keep it and collectively pay for things by way of inflation?”
Personally, I’m all for uncapping it.
Except it doesn’t.
Don’t overlook the ‘Fi’ in ‘SciFi.’
Aspects of tech are often correctly predicted in SciFi going all the way back to Lucian writing about a ship of men flying up to the moon in the 2nd century.
But surrounding what they often get right the authors always get things wrong too. For example, contrary to Lucian’s ideas, in reality the ship of men that flew up to the moon didn’t find a race of human like aliens that were only men who could carry children and had a bunch of gay sex with the men of Apollo-11.
TL;DR: Correctly predicting a technology in a story doesn’t mean correctly predicting the social impact and context for that technology.