It’s racist because you’re ascribing it as an innate characteristic of the American people. Plenty of people have to and do walk through Houston, as that video documents. The wealthy oil oligarchs just had the city built in a way that required car use.

Walking through an American car suburb is nothing like walking through a European city. Racism is still racism, even if the target is Americans. Don’t be a racist.

That’s just a lack of imagination.

Better than aging backwards. Benjamin Button disease takes far too many lives.

I wonder if we’ll ever be able to solve the animal cruelty problem through brute force technology. For example, genetically engineer chickens so they simply never grow a brain. Raise the brainless bodies hooked up to an intravenous feeding system. Could cram more of them in a smaller space that way too. Can’t be cruel to a thing that isn’t conscious in the first place. Sort of a poor man’s lab-grown-meat approach.

Amusingly, most people would probably find this a lot more horrifying than factory farms, even though objectively the animals would experience absolutely no suffering whatsoever, as they wouldn’t even have the minds to comprehend anything about themselves or their environment.

Almost certainly soft. Maybe some wealthy eccentric would frame their house in expensive hard wood as a flex, but wood framed construction is almost exclusively softwood. It grows much more quickly, is easier to work with, and is plenty strong. I wouldn’t frame a house in anything but good old-reliable Douglas Fir.

Have a good day.

You are cringe. With your bizarre desire to drag this into a tired exercise in generational warfare. Sorry, I don’t buy that bullshit.

Because it’s cringe as fuck.

But I wanna build the torment nexus!

I want to see more people claiming formal religious exemptions to being forced to use AI in the workplace. A good case can at least be made for chat bots.

Plenty of religions and cultures have held that words are sacred. The universe was spoken into being. Life was breathed into Man. Etc. That’s the tradition I would appeal to.

If I’m forced to use a chat bot at my work, I’m being forced to have a machine put words in my mouth. Instead of my words representing my own voice, my own, my own soul, a soulless machine speaks for me instead.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to refuse to use AI on religious grounds.

Exactly. If a future superintelligence wants to create a copy of me to torture, well I suppose it can do that. But that entity it creates will not be me, but a lossy copy of me. I will be long dead and in the ground.

If a future superintelligence wants to create innocent sentient beings just to torture them, well that’s on the AI. It can be responsible for its own sins. But it has nothing to do with me.

Honestly, this is bizarre and you’re creeping me out.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that this is a court of law…

The social contract is just that, a contract. The unwritten contract of most developed countries has long been:

*Work hard. Get an education. Don’t steal. Don’t commit acts of violence. Don’t try to foment unrest or rebellion. Walk the straight and narrow. In turn, you’ll have a peaceful and adequate life. You may not be rich, but you’ll have all your needs met during your working years, and you’ll be able to retire when old with a bit of dignity."

For generations, the social contract was that anyone who played along and did things “right” would have a decent life. That decent life might mean living in a modest apartment your whole life, but it was achievable by the vast majority. Traditionally, if you couldn’t achieve self-sufficiency, it’s because you either were excluded from the social contract (like certain minority groups), you were born with some debilitating disability, or because you did something very wrong (like commit a serious crime.)

But contracts are two-way streets. When one side breaks the contract, it breaks for both sides. In wealthy countries, this old social contract has been broken by the rich. Millions are finding they did everything they were supposed to, and they still can’t get a decent life. So with the contract broken, there’s far less reason to follow it.

Most people do not avoid committing crimes simply because they fear the law. Most folks have an ethical belief that stealing and violence is wrong. Most people wouldn’t do these things even if there were no police or prisons. But when you break the social contract, the portion of the population that finds committing crimes to be morally acceptable will inevitably rise.

I solved my issues with urinals by simply removing my ability to use a urinal.

A gantry may not be required in the future. A gantry is used because it greatly simplifies the problem. The gantry allows a fixed known relationship between the print head, the ground, and what is being printed. A simple 3D printer can work completely blind.

But this need not be the only way to 3d print. It’s pointless to have a mobile 3D printer for desktop printing applications. But construction? The case may be different. Imagine a swarm of small robots, each a small cement mixer and print head. Hell, as absurd as it sounds, little flying printing drones might turn out to be a viable solution. The tech required for these is way beyond what is needed for a conventional fixed 3D printer. But it’s probably possible. You don’t set up a huge gantry for your giant house-sized 3D printer. Instead, you unleash a swarm of printing bots onto a construction site. They build up the house like bees assembling a hive from their own wax.

Now you might wonder if this could ever be financially viable. A swarm of printing robots? Well, historically, nothing changes technology faster than war. War forces innovation by necessity. Countries are getting really good at making absurd numbers of high quality robots cheaply.

For example, what’s going to happen to all the Ukrainian drone engineers once the war ends? Sure, some will stay in the defense industry, but peacetime defense budgets are always lower than those of a nation facing existential war. Imagine the minds that are currently inventing drones that can fly a hundred miles and autonomously hunt down and kill individual enemy soldiers. Apply minds like that to the construction automation problem, and suddenly a lot of doors open up.

Hell, I’m sure damn near any builder would happily sell you a fully furnished home. Even tract lot home builders in the middle of Nebraska. You might so annoy them that you’ll end up paying $50k for $10k worth of furniture, but I’m sure it could be done.

You need to use your imagination more. A robotic construction site will not look anything like a human one. Bags of readymix concrete have the form they do because they are intended to be carried by a human being. But the goal isn’t to get a bag from point A to point B. The goal is to get the concrete from point A to point B. Instead of a humanoid robot carrying a bag of readymix, imagine an automated hopper on the end of a crane, with a computer vision and reasoning system that allows it to precisely place it where it needs to go. And instead of that concrete being formed by a humanoid robot holding a trowel in its hands, it will be mounted on a robotic arm mounted on a glorified roomba.

When we automated car factories, we didn’t do so by making millions of mechanical men. Construction will be no different. Individual humans are not masters of every construction trade. Why should we demand the robots be masters of all trades? We can simply purpose-build robots for particular construction tasks. Builders wealthy enough may own a fleet of them. Smaller operations will rent them as needed. Just replace the cost of hiring subcontractors with the cost of renting a particular trade robot.

Keep this in mind. A building is a memory of the tools used to create it. And as those tools change, the buildings change.

Yes, the way we currently build site-built wood-framed construction would be a poor fit for automation. But other building forms may be more amenable to automation. The form of the building itself may change to fit automated construction techniques. The most obvious example of this is 3D printing. And yes, those buildings have many issues. But we not only consider 3D printing.

For example, imagine a building that isn’t so much made from materials cut to length as is made from small blocks or modules assembled together. It’s easier for me to imagine automating ICF construction than stick-built construction. Or maybe in the future, every home will be built with an at-grade or basement slab or basement suitably flat to serve as a working platform for construction robots. Maybe homes are built around a large central vertical shaft, the shaft that once held a large articulated construction robot. (I’m imagining a large robot riding on vertical rails in a vertical shaft. The robot has a long articulated arm that can reach into individual rooms and perform work functions.) Once automation is good enough, you start designing the building for the automation, rather than the automation the building.

Imagine if I could build homes for half the cost of conventional homes. However, it comes with the caveat that these homes look very different from conventional ones. They look different because their design was optimized for automated construction. Would they sell? If they still functioned as homes. If they still kept you warm, dry, and comfortable. Unless the homes were just completely crazy, I think those homes would sell just fine. People have learned to live in all sorts of things. Pioneers built houses on the prairie out of sod. If automated construction requires substantial modification to building design, but those buildings are substantially cheaper or faster to construct? The architecture will bend to the automation.