I notice the headline “Trump deploys nuclear submarines” and my first instinct is I need to grab my siblings, parents and whatever friends and cousins are willing to listen and run to the old country (which has little to no chance of nuclear attack). Am I overreacting? Where’s the threshold...
In a high school faculty lounge one AP history teacher asks another: are you mentioning Israel or any of that? He responds: No. She acknowledges his response, comments on how none of the students have brought it up and they go on to converse about a Netflix show with the...
I would chalk this up to we simply don't know each other as well as we think we do. We think we're good at interpreting facial expressions, body language and style choices until the rare instances where we can check our assumptions against what the observed person is actually thinking/feeling. Society and culture (context?) probably play a big part in our understanding or lack of understanding.
Part of what the question is asking is how do we know (decide?) the difference between performative and true existential threat.
I notice the headline “Trump deploys nuclear submarines” and my first instinct is I need to grab my siblings, parents and whatever friends and cousins are willing to listen and run to the old country (which has little to no chance of nuclear attack). Am I overreacting? Where’s the threshold for such measures? What would it take to convince you that where you lived was no longer safe?
(The underlying logic is that if the US takes actions to threaten a nuclear power, the US would be vulnerable to nuclear retaliation).
Please tell me if I'm understanding this correctly. The main arguments are:
From these two arguments the assumption is that AI will have an incentive to keep human population numbers low or at zero. If my understanding to this point is correct, what do you believe humans now should do knowing these assumptions?
I don't agree that the ChatGPT list is less actionable, notice that all 6 scenarios listed are designed so that humans wouldn't be aware of what was happening while slowly ceding control.
For my own students (I'm getting certified to teach high school business courses) I recommend Sophia learning (https://www.sophia.org/) to get a head start on gen ed college courses.
And it isn’t as if there couldn’t still be a remembrance ceremony with the leftover ashes.
I prefer to have my body buried in accordance with ethnic and cultural norms. Is there an option where they can take out my brain and preserve it and then allow my body to be buried?
I can imagine that building as a solution to low fertility could pick up steam in the coming years in terms of rhetoric but all the same barriers will likely still be in place (NIMBYism, lobbying by landlords, status quo bias etc.)
- Money.
- Insecurity about money.
- Not being able to afford kids or the house to raise them in.
My gut reaction is that these are more perceptions than real obstacles. There's a strong perception that there's a certain dollar amount or level of wealth before one should have children. Somehow changing the perception first would probably help fertility more than simply paying per child.
"Home is where the heart is."
I thought this meant something like home is where longing is (your metaphorical heart), the place that you yearn for the most. Now I think it may simply mean that home is wherever your physical beating heart is. The message behind it being that you can adapt to feel at home most anywhere.
"Breathtaking."
I thought this was just an expression to explain natural beauty but I actually felt the breath leave me when I was young from suddenly seeing a sweeping vista of mountains and forest while riding on a bus when I was a teen.
In a high school faculty lounge one AP history teacher asks another: are you mentioning Israel or any of that? He responds: No. She acknowledges his response, comments on how none of the students have brought it up and they go on to converse about a Netflix show with the larger group.
True story, I overheard this exchange. I think most of us can agree that what and how students are taught has little long term effect but I thought I’d ask since school lessons are such a debated topic in the media. Who should make these decisions? Government? Parents? Teachers? School administration?
If I had to speculate, the social failures were also largely because the adults around you just didn't know how to help you; either with socializing, helping you to better understand and deal with the incongruence and neurodivergence. So while I'm sure there are medical and therapeutic solutions to be considered, we also just need better trained teachers, counselors, social workers, paraprofessionals, etc.