I agree that a full on inhabitable virtual reality is a ways away. In that case, it would need to be something that you work in, hang out in, engage in economic activity in, etc. Seems, yeah, at least a couple decades away before we enter such a full-on stage of things.It's definitely happening no question. But maybe not for 20 years cos the VR glasses are a pain in the arse and the AR needs too much computing power
Actually, thinking in such simplistic, i.e. unambiguous, terms might be exactly what gets us this far, insofar as computers need unambiguous instruction and the future of our society largely depends on how well we can instruct computers.thinking in terms as simplistic as this isn't going to get us very far is it
i would say, in all seriousness, that no coder should ever be allowed to think about societyActually, thinking in such simplistic, i.e. unambiguous, terms might be exactly what gets us this far, insofar as computers need unambiguous instruction and the future of our society largely depends on how well we can instruct computers.
It seems clear to me that plenty of people want this, but I'm inclined to think its a generational thing, to a degree. Too confusing for non digital natives, I suspect. And I'm not even a proper digital native. Imagine learning your first language online.Ignoring the mass hypotheticals in this thread and the "this will happen," is it something anyone really wants?
I would say, with love, that you are multiple decades behind.i would say, in all seriousness, that no coder should ever be allowed to think about society
behind what exactly? these are ideas that predate my birth by decadesI would say, with love, that you are multiple decades behind.
Imagine learning to socialize online. Imagine learning to save money in terms of crypto. Imagine considering the digital world not as auxiliary to the physical world, but the physical as merely the infrastructure of the digital.Imagine learning your first language online.
Well I'm not claiming you are actually unaware of it, just implying that these are developments that have already commenced, so approval is moot, albeit significant merely as an indication of your values.behind what exactly? these are ideas that predate my birth by decades
thats exactly what im saying. this is the problem. that there is top-down administration of an agenda which is drawn up without consulting me in any wayWell I'm not claiming you are actually unaware of it, just implying that these are developments that have already commenced, so approval is moot, albeit significant merely as an indication of your values.
I do think some of the most interesting things aren't on offer here, namely the pursuit of deeper degrees of enlightenment. That is one thing I won't doggedly advocate blockchain for.they 'want' it in the way they 'want' the new marvel movie, or the buffet options they pile on their plates. they want it cos its on offer. but what about the things that aren't on offer? perhaps they are a great deal more interesting.
I don't believe, say, Bitcoin was an intel operation, so not all of it is top-down. And to be clear, Bitcoin, as crude as it may seem compared to other blockchains, was one of the most important things to happen in the last 15 years, or at least that may prove to be the established opinion in hindsight.thats exactly what im saying. this is the problem. that there is top-down administration of an agenda which is drawn up without consulting me in any way