Bad title. He was arrested for stalking and harassing them, a feature of which was videoing them. Filming in public remains completely legal and consent isn't required.
When a mental health issue affects men and women equally you end up with more women at the doctor and more men dead.
But that's besides the point. Schmidt is calling out his concern for young men in particular because I think he knows a thing or too about what people google and what obsessive behaviours they can fall into especially regarding sexual fantasy.
He already has a front row seat to stats on porn addiction and how this fuels male isolation in particular. If you read the article you'll see it cites an example of a young boy committing suicide through his romantic interactions with a chatbot.
Women are exposed to impossible beauty standards and have higher anxiety, OCD and other disorders than men. But Schmidt isn't referring to that.
Men are lonely, have lower life satisfaction, and are far more likely to get sexually addicted to increasingly sophisticated immersive porn.
At some point they're going to have to depart from the "single name" branding. Because the selling point is going to be how unique the AI is for you, how different from all the others. I wonder how they'll handle branding at that point? Maybe if you create "Marla", Apple are still going to say it's a type of "Siri" if that's the base technology. But I think we may start seeing weirder more organic things like "your AI Marla - a daughter of Siri - is ready"
True. But I'm not talking about fooling people. Just lowering the amount of "willing suspension of disbelief".
I think the part that feels 'sad' to you is what's going to change socially over the next 50 years. I think it's going to become extremely normal to at least have a "mental health AI friend" who knows you really well and keeps you going through the day, is someone to talk to, someone who's always there, someone who's the first to detect that you may be in danger. Overall I think society's going to receive that as a good thing. And it will, I think, be normal because it will be so believable, and so useful, and for a large number of people, keep them well and feeling good about themselves. In that context some of those attachments turning romantic, or people just being sexually into whatever that assistant can say or do will be increasingly normal. It will also feel really good, let's not forget that. We're really only at the very start of what immersive VR is going to be. Once AI becomes not a little better but 50-100 years of innovation better I don't think we can really underestimate how much it's going to feel like you're actually interacting with [insert fantasy here]. Once tactile feedback sees similar improvements we're about 75% of the way to what people would use an actual holodeck for anyway. I can't see how that doesn't have a dramatic effect on how people view human-human romantic relationships. Over time the proportion of people who can have a believable experience of their absolute sexual fantasy is only going to grow over time. With how ubiquitous that will be I can't see how in most relationships people know they're "second best". I think that has a profound effect on how people make attachments to one another. I think once "having a real girlfriend" is seen as the secondary way to get your sexual needs met, that that will have a terminal effect on how many young men even want to be in relationships let alone stay around to be a father.
That's a good point, yes. It's just I've watched quite a lot of LIGO scientists talking about it and they all seem to use the same language of the black holes "merging" or "joining". And the quiet period afterwards being a "cool down". None of them mention the relativistic effects of one hole almost-but-not-quite reaching the other which I'd have thought was a fairly easy observation to make when explaining the distinct phases of the signal?
I understand where you're coming from now. Yes I agree. Though I'll add that I'm pretty confident that the sex industry is going to be at the bleeding edge of AI / VR as things progress. At least, I think the bar for making people interested in what an attractive AI has to say rather than another disappointing night on tinder is far lower than automating all human labour. Even if we're talking physical "sexbots" I think, practically speaking, that more likely to be rudimentary 'equipment' greatly enhanced by augmented VR. Again, far closer to reality than Boston dynamics + son of chatGPT replacing the workforce. My point being that the bar at which young people become disinterested in physical reproduction is far, far lower than a post scarcity society in which all labour is automated. And that's the risk. That we start to have a shortfall in workforce replacement long before we can manage without it.
You're looking at the AI equivalent of where stop frame animation was in 1930. It's a few years old and rudimentary. Give it 80 years. That's the time frame I was talking about.
Spending all time dating AI partners means that we have achieved labor post scarcity
Bit of a weird non sequitur
What I'm saying has nothing to do "labour post scarcity"
I'm referring to immersive VR and AI overall contributing to a falling birthrate. If immersive realities become truly immersive, it's reasonable to believe they will occupy leisure time. This has nothing to do with people's relationship to work. They'll still need to be economically active, whether or not this takes place in the VR is neither here nor there.
It's a point about what people will do with their time when they are lonely, want connection, or pleasure. And if VR / AI (whatever other technologies) becomes believable and more satisfying then there's little reason to believe people will continue the "unreliable" tradition of dating. And even less to engage in the mucky and very biological habit of reproducing.
Witness Japanese culture. And then just add 100 years of immersive believable AI personality and sexual fantasy. Do you think that will make people get married and have babies or do you think it will help them being content being single and childless?
I have been saying for a while, I think hyperealistic vr and believable AI personalities are going to be the 'great filter' that limits advanced civilization.
Given the chance to have your sexual and emotional fantasies fulfilled in a satisfying way, many many people will take it. Especially when 'real life' is getting harder with everything from the cost of living making the dream of 'married with home and children' less obtainable to hyper competitive online dating disenfranchising increasing proportions of both men and women.
Having a believable relationship with AI is far closer than we think. It doesn't have to perfectly replicate real life, it just has to be satisfying enough in a few key ways that people begin to prefer it.
casually looks at male suicide rate
Optimal viewing experience of Lawrence in Arabia was in real life
Because the eggs are unable to open the bag due to lack of opposable thumbs
Hezbollah began firing on Israel in solidarity with Hamas..
Well now, that wasn't very sensible was it?
Right? Which makes sense.
But if you see (or hear) the results at LIGO they appear to convey the frequency of rotation getting higher and higher to a crescendo.
This seems at odds with what's generally supposed to happen as a mass approaches a blackhole: its time appears to slow, any signals from it appear increasingly redshifted.
So why are the gravitational waves not "redshifted", that is, lower and lower frequency, petering out to nothing the same way light would. The opposite seems to happen.
It was because of the difference between the two that I read under the impression that there was something special about gravitational waves and that we were observing the blackholes continuing to circle each other inside their event horizons until their singularities merge. At which point it makes sense for the gravitational waves to abruptly stop.
If that's not the case (and it does make sense that it isn't), then why the almost opposite character of light and gravitational waves? Both propagate through spacetime at c. So why aren't both affected the same?
Pub owner should have said that they were exercising their religious freedom and quoting Jesus in Luke 13:32-34. And then sue PETA on the grounds of religiously motivated harassment.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 13:32-34&version=VOICE
Podcast idea: Two casual DIY guys with a beer each name and shame fixtures and fittings still being sold with flathead screws and lament the slower adoption of better screw head forms. We'll call it "Torx Talk".
In principle, could gravity be used to send a information from within a black hole's event horizon?
I feel the obvious answer should be "no" but help me think this through. It came from the previous Q on blackholes and am posting here for more visibility.
So considering two blackholes rotating about each other and eventually combining. It's in this situation that we get gravitational waves which we can detect (LIGO experiments). But what happens in the closing moments when the blackholes are within each others event horizon but not yet combined (and so still rotating rapidly about each other). Do the gravitational waves abruptly stop? Or are we privy to this "information" about what's going on inside an event horizon.
Thinking more generally, if the distribution of mass inside an event horizon can affect spacetime outside of the horizon then what happens in the following situation:
imagine a gigantic blackhole, one that allows a long time between passing the horizon and being crushed. You approach the horizon in a giant spacecraft and hover at a safe distance. You release a supermassive probe to descend past the horizon. The probe is supermassive in the way a mountain is supermassive. The intention is to be able to detect it's location via perturbation in the gravity field alone. Similar to how an actual mountain causes a pendulum to hang a miniscule yet measurable distance off the vertical.
Say the probe now descends down past the horizon, at some distance off the normal. Say a quarter mile to the 'left' if you consider the direction of the blackholes gravitational pull.
Let's say you had set the probes computer to perform some experiment, and a simple "yay/nay" indicated by it either staying on its current course down (yay) or it firing it's rockets laterally so that it approaches the direct line been you and the singularity and ends up about a quarter mile 'right' (to indicate nay).
The question is, is the relative position of the mass of this probe detectable by examining the resultant gravitational force exerted on your spaceship? Had it remained just off of centre minutely to the 'left' where it started to indicate the probe communicating 'yay' to you, or has it now deflected minutely to the right indicating 'nay'?
Whether the answer to this is yes or no, I'm confused what would happen in real life?
If the probes relative location is not detectable via gravity once it crosses the horizon, what happens as it approaches? Your very sensitive gravity equipment originally had a slight deviation to the left when both you and probe were outside the horizon. Does it abruptly disappear when it crosses the horizon? If so where does it go? The mass of the probe will eventually join with the mass of the singularity to make the blackhole slightly more massive. But does the gravitational pull of its mass instantly change from the location in the horizon where it crossed (about a quarter mile to the 'left') to now being at the singularity directly below. Anything "instant" doesn't seem right.
Or.. it's relative position within the horizon is detectable based on you examining the very slight deviations of your super sensitive pendulum equipment on board your space craft. And you're able to track it's relative position as it descends, until it's minute contribution to gravity has coalesced with the main blackhole.
But if this is the case then aren't we now getting information from within the horizon? Couldn't you set your probe to do experiments and then pass information back to you by it performing some rudimentary dance of manoeuvres? Which also seems crazy?
So both options seem crazy? Which is it?
(Note, this is a thought experiment. The probe is supermassive using some sort of future tech that's imaginable but far from possible by today's standards. Think a small planet with fusion powered engines or whatever. The point is, in principle, mass is detectable, and mass is moveable. Is this a way to peek inside a blackhole??)
Who popularised the 1980s ballad upward key change?
Modulation / key changes have been used in music for ages but the style I'm talking about is the distinctive last verse (or chorus) sudden key change up to power through to the end. Seems to have come about sometime in the 60s/70s and was everywhere in the 80s onwards.
Examples:
Heaven is a place on earth - Belinda Carlisle
I will always love you - Whitney Houston
But who popularised it? What was the first big song to do it and set the style for the genre?
In the liftoff app on Android, how do you get from replies in your inbox to the conversation thread?
I seem to be completely failing to work out how to do this? See the reply in your inbox in the context of the original conversation?