I pitched them a paper magazine a few years ago, because I wish I could leave these around for my kids to flip through, but no joy yet..
I pitched them a paper magazine a few years ago, because I wish I could leave these around for my kids to flip through, but no joy yet..
Those summaries will be written in a similarly ephemeral format. A book in a library can sit there and be rediscovered in a hundred years. A scroll or an engraving in a thousand. But we create things that have evaporated in a mere decade.
Even thought of etching that on stainless plates or something.
Could be scanned with a smartphone or even decoded by hand (include an ASCII lookup table).
I have a wedding photograph printed on non-biodegradable material (not intentionally for preservation, it's decorative), and perhaps that will eventually be the only tangible evidence of me in the same way that wedding photographs are all I've seen of some relatives born before 1900.
I'd wager we're 20 - 30 years out from regenerative cloning, and 50 - 75 out from reproductive cloning. We could start that process today if we weren't so squeamish.
ML is coming to a head, and we'll potentially have machines that outclass us in basic tasks in 25 - 50 years. Within 200, I'd say the human experiment is at an end.
What then? Either we evolve along with our machines, we become one with the machines, or the machines take over.
We're living in the last stages of the human species right now, and not many people think to contemplate that and integrate it into their worldview.
Climate, space exploration, etc. is all incredibly human-centric. Fighting for resources, defining legacies, ... I mean, it's what we as humans do. One day it'll just suddenly end, and it's probably only a handful of generations until the pieces fall into place.
Just this line makes me skeptical of the rest of your thinking as well... what I've seen of ML application leaves me strongly convinced that every usage of ML will need human supervision and override control. Every case of "can't reach a human to get this corrected" is a call for boycotting / suing to force a human override channel for any automated system.
The "human experiment" is not an experiment, it is the fundamental reality, and no automation will ever truly replace human thoughts plus emotions plus inherent irrational priorities / preferences / biases.
My Kindle books etc. are not visible to my son in the same way. Spatial, in your face, visibility matters in transferring culture.
Then you get over it. They're whip smart and doing things their way, trying to force them into yours probably would not work anyway.
Mostly over it.
Future generations will have a different experience than those in the past. Theirs will be slightly more fair
Aeon https://aeon.co
Undark Magazine https://undark.org
The Conversation https://theconversation.com/global
Curie https://www.tidningencurie.se/en/home/ (based in Sweden)
Edit: actually it upgrades to HTTPS without complaint! Something might be wrong with your software/internet.
That's fine but that will give you an extremely limited vision of the world. The technocratic, slightly anarcho-capitalistic, American-knows-best, social liberal world view.If you choose that way at least go to https://www.project-syndicate.org/, with a little wider spectrum (With actual good economists and not the stenographer of the day) Too bad the redesign is totally crap.
Well I am not sure about that.As it happens with most pop-sci publications the quality has taken a nose-dive.
For example:
> A new thought experiment indicates that quantum mechanics doesn’t work without strange numbers that turn negative when squared.
I am not saying is a "bad" magazine per se, all I am saying is virtuable indistiguinshable from your SciAm, New Scientist and Discover. Some good articles and plenty of fluff.
The level you want is in other places like:
- https://physicstoday.scitation.org/journal/pto (free access to the 73 year archive)
- https://inference-review.com/issues (Ignore the 2014 crackpot articles)