I wonder how the survey question was worded because when I applied I recall most of my applications were to out of state schools meaning which at the time these were been 30k+. Wasn't ever planning to pay this much and would only conisder if I received any substantial scholarships or aid. I think applying does not mean willing to pay that much

I don't think it's an advertising thing though it could play into it.

- Eating a varied healthy diet is a lot more expensive than eating a varied unhealthy diet (if you can eat kale, rice, and beans all day then good for you but most can't)

- We're creatures of habit, if we grow up eating unhealthy we are more likely to continue to as adults. Eating healthy for most people requires cooking for yourself, many never learn this skill or see their parents putting daily effort into meals when they are children.

- Lack of public education around the topic, lack funding for free healthy lunches for school children

I had a friend when I was in school who had the most messed up disgusting teeth I'd ever seen. He had dental insurance, a decent job, decent pay. Turns out he never grew up learning that you're supposed to brush your teeth regularly so he just never made a habit out of it.

> Eating a varied healthy diet is a lot more expensive than eating a varied unhealthy diet (if you can eat kale, rice, and beans all day then good for you but most can't)

Eating healthy is not more expensive. Potatoes, rice, beans, carrots, etc. are all inexpensive. I was in the store today, and a can of Nalley chili with meat and beans is $2.19. It's more than enough for a meal.

I also buy whatever's on sale, including the day older steak which is around half off. A half gallon of milk is $1.99.

Kale, rice, and beans are notoriously cheap! When I worked in a restaurant 20 years ago we put kale out as decoration because no one wanted to eat it. Times change, I suppose.

What happens if the battery dies or other technical issue is what I want to know

That's okay, there's a pipe inspection robot removal robot. If you're wondering how it would work, then an unsatisfactory answer is "spherical gears".

I guess the digestive tract has a way of removing things over time..

What we really need is pipes with peristaltic movement.

as long as they don't also glisten or ooze.

Both amazing and terrifying. Might be wishful thinking that as a race we do the right thing with these technologies but here is to hoping

The nation that makes the most use of this will succeed and spread the most.

AI is the new nuke.

We will likely see a rapid arms race in using AI in weaponry. If you can automate everything, wage a war without suffering human losses, you gain the ability to conquer without worry. If China develops autonomous soldier robots, autonomous warplanes, and decided to pre-emptively attack the US, what do you think would happen?

It seems to me as though the US has no choice but to develop this technology, lest they fall behind.

I'm not sure there's a realistic chance of avoiding dystopia.

The US would respond with nukes. Same scenario like today.

Maybe someone more knowledgeable can help me out, but I don't see how AI would actually change anything between world powers.

AI will be used for population control and censorship. WW1 introduced new inhumane ways to mass murder tens of millions of people. AI in WW3 will be used in the same way - to thin the herd.

If AI is the new nuke what does nonproliferation look like?

Not an expert here, but I think one of the only reasons that nonproliferation works is because it’s generally difficult to make nukes without making it pretty obvious that you’re doing it. Even biological warfare is somewhat easy to identify. AI seems different in that it just requires intelligent people, compute power, and time.

What does it look like? Neuromancer's Turing Police

Right and how did that work out for those 3? Wintermute still found a way.

Let’s pre-empt that, even: assassinations of non-allied AI researchers?

Nations hoarding EMPs

That and ai, manually combing through 50tb of audio data was previously not possible. Have a colleague who just finished up a project detecting these sorts of signals using CNNs, forget what species he was looking at, but results were quite good.

yea but the difference is you pay for a netflix subscription. Their main purpose is to keep you paying for a subscription, social media's purpose is to keep you engaged so they can advertise to you.

Yes, but: - They're trying to do the same thing by keeping you engaged by shoving up as much content as they can to you, by making recommender systems that "know you". - They polarize you in just the same way as advertisements do. Once I started watching documentaries on meat, that's all I was suggested further. The only thing I'd say is Netflix's content is regulated and less opinionated, whereas YouTube is a free market and every opinion has its own library of rabbit holes to dig into.

Well, netflix's product is the content they serve and one logs on netflix to consume its content. FB or google are supposed to offer other "services" for "free" and end up abusing that in order to shove ads down your throat. Am I the only who sees a difference there ?