GreenPat forum posts in last 60 days

Show Edits
GreenPat
GreenPat
QLD
4103 posts
QLD, 4103 posts
5 May 2026 1:13pm
cammd said..
So are the doomsday predictions kicking around online plausible, or is it just clickbait fearmongering.




I'd say a bit of both. Fear sells headlines thanks to our evolutionary wiring, but we still need to put the effort to steer the ship. If we let people like Musk, Trump and Zuckerberg set the course we might be in trouble, but Amodei, Kurzweil and Tegmark seem to have their heads screwed on right.
I gave ChatGPT this prompt: give me a concise summary of ray kurzweil's singularity timeline, and the possible outcomes for humanity of AI/AGI advances.

ChatGPT said..

Ray Kurzweil frames the “singularity” as a point where technological growth—especially AI—becomes so rapid and self-improving that it fundamentally transforms human civilization.

Kurzwell’s rough timeline (simplified)
2020s[/b]: Narrow AI surpasses humans in many domains; early forms of AGI-like systems[/b] emerge.
Early 2030s[/b]: AI reaches human-level general intelligence (AGI)[/b].
Mid–late 2030s[/b]: Brain–computer interfaces mature; humans begin direct integration with AI[/b] (cognitive enhancement).
2040s[/b]: AI systems improve themselves recursively → rapid intelligence explosion.
~2045[/b]: Singularity[/b] — machine intelligence vastly exceeds human intelligence; human/AI distinction blurs.

Possible outcomes for humanity
1. Optimistic (Kurzweil’s own view) Human-AI merging[/b] (enhanced cognition, memory, creativity) Radical abundance (automation → cheap goods/services) Major breakthroughs in medicine and longevity[/b] Humans remain relevant by augmenting themselves[/b]
2. Mixed / transitional Massive economic disruption[/b] (jobs displaced faster than replaced) Power concentrated among those controlling advanced AI Social instability before new systems (UBI, new work models) settle things Uneven global access to enhancement technologies
3. Pessimistic / risk-heavy Misaligned AGI acting against human interests Loss of human control over critical systems Extreme inequality (enhanced vs non-enhanced humans) In worst cases: existential risk if superintelligence is not aligned
4. Alternative view (less dramatic than Kurzweil) Progress continues but no sharp “singularity”[/b] AI becomes extremely powerful but remains tool-like[/b], not runaway Humans adapt socially rather than biologically merging at scale
Bottom line:[/b]Kurzweil’s model is aggressively exponential and optimistic. The real uncertainty isn’t whether AI becomes transformative—it likely will—but how fast, how controlled, and who benefits[/b].

GreenPat
GreenPat
QLD
4103 posts
QLD, 4103 posts
4 May 2026 1:11pm
westozwind said..
Heaps of undocumented, unintelligible code that is not even remotely maintainable


Like I said, no worse than my own code 😄
GreenPat
GreenPat
QLD
4103 posts
QLD, 4103 posts
4 May 2026 11:23am
Carantoc said..
From what I've seen so far, including the examples here, I'm rating Ai as having about the same hype to actual value relationship as bitcoin has.

Mind you, if I got sacked from my career and replaced by something that thinks 'thirteen' has a letter 'a' in it maybe I'd be pathologically confused about my own competence as well.


From what I've seen so far, AI is not even in the same galaxy as bitcoin. Bitcoin seems pretty useless apart from another way to gamble. I use AI almost daily for writing code and I think it's a complete game changer. With it comes new challenges, but I'm now able to generate about 10x as much code in the same time as I used to, and it's no worse than my own code. It's like mowing the lawn with a mower compared to a pair of scissors.
I reckon that quote about thirteen having an "a" in it might have been from a few years or at least months ago. My post from this weekend might support that. The quality of the models is improving exponentially. Interesting article here: www.linkedin.com/pulse/something-big-happening-matt-shumer-so5he/ (disclaimer: I haven't finished reading it yet, but the first half lines right up with my experience).
I note the point about AI models being used to write the code for AI models. If anyone is familiar with the work of Ray Kurzweil, he was saying some years ago this milestone would be coming around about now. And since that's just one in a long line of accurate predictions, I'm interested in the rest of his predictions for the next few years and decades.
Max Tegmark also makes some interesting points in Life 3.0.

GreenPat
GreenPat
QLD
4103 posts
QLD, 4103 posts
3 May 2026 11:12pm
myscreenname said..



What is a number under 1000 that contains the letter 'a'




Let's list number names under 1000 and see if any contain the letter a.
Numbers like:
? 100 ? "one hundred" (no 'a')
? 101 ? "one hundred one" (no 'a')
? Generally, many numbers have no 'a' until you get to 1000 itself and some in the hundreds place if the tens/units include the word "and" with an 'a', but "and" is often spoken but not written in formal number names.
? However, the number eight ? has no 'a';
? nine ? has no 'a';
? ten ? no 'a';
? eleven, twelve - no 'a' inside (though 'eleven' has an 'e' and an 'v').
Actually, let's think:
Sometimes numbers contain letters when spelled as one, two, three, .
Check small numbers for 'a':
? zero (has 'o', 'e', 'r', 'o' - no 'a')
? one (has 'o', 'n', 'e' - no 'a')
? two (no 'a')
? three (no 'a')
? four (no 'a')
? five (no 'a')
? six (no 'a')
? seven (no 'a')
? eight (no 'a')
? nine (no 'a')
? ten (no 'a')
? eleven (has 'e','l','v','n' - no 'a')
? twelve (no 'a')
? thirteen (contains 'a') - yes! thirteen has an 'a' (thirteen: third letter from start: i, r, a - an 'a').
Thirteen is 13, which is under 1000.
So thirteen is an example.
Thus, the simplest answer is 13 (since the question says "a number", not "the smallest").






No number “contains” the letter a if you’re talking about the numeric form (e.g., 1, 42, 999).
But if you mean the word form, then plenty do. For example:
One thousand → contains “a” (but that’s not under 1000)
A more relevant example under 1000: “A hundred” → contains “a”
Or more cleanly:
“A” is literally part of how you might say numbers, e.g. “a hundred and five”
So the trick is:
Digits: none qualify
Spelled-out words: many qualify, depending on phrasing
If you want a stricter version (no added words like “a” or “and”), then no number under 1000 contains the letter “a” when spelled out (e.g., one, two, three… nine hundred ninety-nine — none include “a”).
Reply in Topic: New emoticons
GreenPat
GreenPat
QLD
4103 posts
QLD, 4103 posts
21 Mar 2026 11:36am
Looks the goods so far. I haven't found the new moderation tools yet, hopefully nobody acts up until I do 😆🚯



edit: found them 😉
Return To Classic site 😭
Or... let us know if a problem, so we can tweak! 😅