🧵 Future Technology 2077
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jan 2024 14:42:17 UTC No. 15996339
What will the world look like in 2077 technologically? Of course, radical new technologies get introduced every now and then. For me, personally, GPT4 has been revolutionary. I wouldn't have gotten stuck in my college computer science course in 2018 had I had access to GPT4, and it has been an excellent tool for educating me. Vehicles that are almost entirely automated will likely be around. Flying cars are an early 20th century fantasy. They would be way too dangerous. I can imagine cities becoming more 3D, though, with people walking between buildings through bridges above ground level and through tunnels underground. Cities will certainly be way larger with more skyscrapers. Medicine will also be way more advanced, and we will likely have actual functioning bionic limbs.
When it comes to computer graphics, by 2077, people will have almost surely gone past caring about resolution. 8K gaming at 144 Hz and above will become a thing when Nvidia comes out with their 50 series of GPUs, and I don't think very many people are going to care about 16K gaming when it comes out. You would need to have a good eye to distinguish a 16K image from an 8K image on a 28 to 32-inch typical computer monitor. I have pretty good vision myself, so I might be able to do it, but once we'd get to 32K, it certainly wouldn't matter anymore. I bet 8K resolutions will become the norm in a decade, with television and film being filmed at 8K.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jan 2024 15:01:48 UTC No. 15996356
>>15996339
The civilization will collapse by that point
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jan 2024 15:05:32 UTC No. 15996361
Bout the same, lot more expensive per unit compared to now.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jan 2024 15:07:38 UTC No. 15996367
One thing I forgot to mention is ghost guns. Miniature CNC machines, highly-advanced 3D printers, including metal 3D printers, and even miniature injection molding machines will be fairly affordable by then. Gun control will still be a thing, but any midwit will be able to make their own military-grade weaponry at home. I suspect special machines that automate the process of making various chemicals will also become affordable commodities by then. These machines could be used to make explosives.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jan 2024 16:48:02 UTC No. 15996463
>>15996339
I think you don't really need 8k... Many cinemas haven't bothered with upgrading to 4k, but the picture is different somehow, so there are no subpixels.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jan 2024 16:51:42 UTC No. 15996465
>>15996356
two more weaks
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jan 2024 17:34:11 UTC No. 15996520
>>15996339
You're just describing minor improvements over the current status quo, the same future that mainstream pop-sci had been shilling for 10 years, except with more genAI and less spaceflight.
It would be depressing if all there could be in 50 years is incremental improvements to genAI and manufacturing. Everything you're describing could come true in much less than 50 years or already exists.
>Medicine will also be way more advanced, and we will likely have actual functioning bionic limbs.
All I care about is being a big tiddy anime girl for real.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jan 2024 17:36:14 UTC No. 15996524
>>15996339
Even predicting ten years in the future is really difficult. A lot can happen in 40 years though. Internet didn't even exist 40 years ago and that has changed things drastically. I guess that's kind of obvious.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jan 2024 18:01:50 UTC No. 15996553
>>15996524
i read somewhere that future predictions usually fall into one of the extremes, either people extrapolate current technology and research and miss the mark predicting ironclad zeppelins and nuclear powered everything, or they predict their one personal pet field will undergo a massive paradigm shift
the scale today i guess would slide between "better LLMs and personalized medicine" to "functional immortality in FDVR"
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jan 2024 18:10:00 UTC No. 15996568
>>15996553
>nuclear powered everything
Outside of the fallout universe, has any serious person ever made such a prediction? Nuclear reactors can't be built to be small enough to fit in something like a car or aircraft. From the 1960s documentaries about the future I watched when I was a teenager in the mid 2010s, they actually got a lot of things right. Shopping through a medium like the internet and making video calls, for example. Believe it or not, they already had video calling technology in the 1960s if you were wealthy enough to afford the service, but I believe the service died out on its own due to lack of popularity by the 1970s.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jan 2024 21:12:28 UTC No. 15996835
a solar flare will torch the international oceanic internet cables and satellite rendering most of the progress made in the last decade and a half
countries will once again become a lot less amicable with eachother due to a lack of interconection between one another, the economy will be in shambles but when is that not the case
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jan 2024 21:15:00 UTC No. 15996840
>>15996339
Just like today but worse, probably even more brown
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 01:50:36 UTC No. 15997174
>>15996339
Humanoid robots with organic parts
Humans with extra nanite bio immune systems and sensory enhancements
Average human lives a life that even the richest person alive today can not match.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 02:09:26 UTC No. 15997199
>>15996356
Any year now
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 02:12:44 UTC No. 15997204
>>15996356
>We aren't putting black people who marry white people in jail anymore, society will collpase any minute now!
Sure, anonymous, sure.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 03:39:33 UTC No. 15997287
channings asshole with shit in it
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 11:35:54 UTC No. 15997656
>>15996339
I need chips with memories of someone learning a subject to implant that knowledge into my brain.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 11:39:19 UTC No. 15997659
>>15997204
He is 100% correct. Quality of life is falling apart in America at least. California as the prime example.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 12:09:30 UTC No. 15997683
>>15996339
human eyes see 16K
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 12:22:45 UTC No. 15997690
>>15997683
The way your vision works, you have a ton of definition for a small angle of view, and less definition outside this small angle. In the future, I don't believe most people will be able to tell a 32K resolution apart from a 16K resolution once the two become available. Each time you double the number of pixels per axis, the difference in image quality becomes less noticeable. I've read that 8K displays are still noticeably better than 4K displays, especially when it comes to displaying small particles. If I get within a foot of my 28-inch 4K display, I can still discern the individual pixels if I really focus. This should become a near impossibility once 16K displays come around. When it comes to viewing naughty images, when 16K resolutions come out, I will no longer get bothered by the loss of resolution due to scaling an image to fit a particular display. I will be able to zoom in and out of images without worry.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 12:29:09 UTC No. 15997691
>>15997683
16k is 8000cycles, bluish green for siplicity is 500nm, which means you need a 4mm pupil to fit 8000 cycles. Yeah, maybe if stand pretty close or the screen is huge. Assuming otherwise no flaws and no limit from the retina. Maybe, yes.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 12:44:11 UTC No. 15997702
>>15997691
Are you implying that a small 16K display would be impossible? Last time I got my vision checked, I maxxed out the test with 20/16 vision, but my vision is likely better than this. If I get within a foot of my 28-inch 4K monitor, I can tell apart the pixels if I focus. I imagine i could also distinguish the pixels of a 28-inch 8K display, but I've never actually seen one. I can't focus on the pixels if I get within seven inches of my display, though. This is why I figure I wouldn't be able to see the individual pixels of a 28-inch 16K display, but that wouldn't necessarily mean I wouldn't be able to distinguish image quality between a 16K and 32K resolution, especially up close.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 12:49:23 UTC No. 15997703
>>15997702
My calculation is for a radian (about 57°) of vision. Yes it is possible assuming your pupils are big enough, your retina dense enough, and no other major flaws.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 13:24:01 UTC No. 15997737
>>15996339
human enhancement will stay non-invasive.
People simply do not want to have some crazy scientist fuck with their brain / skull and implant electronics in their bodies.
The next step for tech is spatial computing (basically AR but since AR/VR is often associated with the failure of oculus and the likes, brands like Apple are banning this word and instead prefer spatial computing kek).
I can imagine a future where manual labor workers have extra arms or wear lightweight exoskeletons + discrete AR headsets. These things already exist but they're usually inconvenient to wear.
I expect someone like Elon Musk or Steve Jobs to focus on this type of equipment in the future. Someone who's gonna larp as an engineer but really is just someone with good people skills and who understands that the AR/exoskeleton shit will never sell unless it is easy to use, good looking and user-friendly.
Apple is kinda trying to be the pioneer with their new headset but shit looks heavy and uncomfortable to wear, even though they had the good idea to keep the face of the user somewhat visible.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 13:27:12 UTC No. 15997740
>>15997737
Also humanoid robots won't be a thing for a while.
The amount of effort and money put into making a robot do anything a human can do will simply always outweigh the profit one can make with hiring immigrants at a minimum wage to do the same job. Like seriously.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 13:31:23 UTC No. 15997748
>>15997740
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/SgE6D-
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 13:32:46 UTC No. 15997749
>>15997740
Robots are already seeing use in various militaries. It's not much of a stretch to imagine humanoid robots seeing similar use. Think of bomb squads.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 14:57:30 UTC No. 15997854
>>15997683
Of course not. The eye resolution is not homogeneous, it is very low at the periphery and high only in the macula. The most peripheral vision is as low as ~ 180p. The macula is at most ~ 1080p. It only appears to be higher because we focus the macula only in a small part of the screen.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 16:41:31 UTC No. 15997972
>>15996339
>8K gaming at 144 Hz and above will become a thing when Nvidia comes out with their 50 series of GPUs, and I don't think very many people are going to care about 16K gaming when it comes out.
You are thinking too much along evolutionary lines and not enough about upcoming revolutions. Why up the resolution when you instead can pipe the knowledge of the field of vision straight to the cortex, possibly bypassing the visual cortex entirely?
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 16:46:17 UTC No. 15997978
>>15997737
>human enhancement will stay non-invasive.
Pick related is what US military wants.
>People simply do not want to have some crazy scientist fuck with their brain / skull and implant electronics in their bodies.
People willingly inject drugs made by crazier people.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 17:41:15 UTC No. 15998050
>>15996339
Hordes of brown niggers kissing the boots of genetically enhanced Chinese overlords visiting their United Colony of America who then step on their skulls, breaking and splattering them punishment for their overt love for their Chinese lords without their clothes being ruined due to their white stainproof fibers
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 18:17:48 UTC No. 15998092
>>15997978
>Pick related is what US military wants.
based darpa
i should have been a biochemist
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jan 2024 22:28:11 UTC No. 15998333
>>15996339
AI will be used to go through practically every single scientific article published to detect fraud. A major fraction of all professors will be jailed.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 02:34:41 UTC No. 15998615
>>15996356
Civilization never "collapses", only consolidates.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 02:48:06 UTC No. 15998625
>>15997174
>Humanoid robots with organic parts
I like the phrasing. Until we learn (with AI's help) to create printable synthetic musculature that operates at a molecular level, humanoid robots will remain awkward curiosities. Asimo and Atlas are effectively moving with the equivalent of only the largest leg "muscles", incapable of the minute adjustments a coordinated human leg and feet can easily manage.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 07:43:37 UTC No. 15998859
>>15998333
The thing I fear the most is that people will trust the AI.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 08:40:44 UTC No. 15998898
>>15997748
shit will FOREVER look uncanny. They have to be made cartoony / anime to be likeable, but trying to make a machine look human is forever going to be a failure, they can't and will never be human.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 08:42:16 UTC No. 15998900
>>15996339
We haven't had a flood 1930's Germans tier autists yet or a flood of 1860's Anglo autists in a good while. We're just making what they've created more efficient. Not bad but we're used to dramatic progress once in a lifetime and it seems we have plateaued.
Hopefully we can maintain the plateau until a next revelation of thinking and general awareness because people who want to collapse everything for shits & giggles have found their way to be in charge of everything.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 10:49:21 UTC No. 15998994
>>15998050
This is what I've believed for many years. The Chinese are deeply into eugenics, and they strongly value education, along with suppressing pseudoscientific religion. They don't value equity there, and they punish students and their parents if they get bad grades in school. In the US, the rate at which material is taught is determined by how fast the dumbest nigger is capable of learning, and not only are they low-IQ, they are also very lazy, so they're not even going to be putting in any effort to pass, but you can't just set up the school curriculum such that they all end up getting held back, so you have to lower the standards for all the other students. I am so grateful I attended a private Catholic school from preschool through eighth grade, even though I no longer believe in any religious bullshit. I went to a public high school for a couple years before graduating from an online high school just six months later. The work load was way smaller when I was in public high school than it was when I was in private middle school. When I was in online high school, I was just trying to graduate as soon as possible.
The Chinese military is already growing at a rate faster than that of the US military. The Chinese military will almost certainly end up eclipsing that of the US in a few decades, and definitely 53 years from now. They will have a much more efficient society, and they will have way more educated people than the US, and a much higher percentage of these people will be educated in STEM and fields that are heavy in STEM, and these STEM-educated individuals will have higher average IQs. Their eugenic policies will result in them at least retaining their average IQ, if not increasing it, while the dysgenic policies of the US will result in a loss of IQ. Mass immigration from the third world and welfare programs incentivizing welfare queens to reproduce will ruin the US in the long run.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 11:05:56 UTC No. 15999015
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 11:51:13 UTC No. 15999067
>>15998898
Only schizos see the valley.
In fact, maybe we should make them uncanny on purpose, so that schizos refuse to use them.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 12:51:46 UTC No. 15999138
>>15997978
uh transisters?
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 14:26:23 UTC No. 15999238
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 14:29:05 UTC No. 15999239
>>15999015
What part of that was wrong?
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 17:23:11 UTC No. 15999449
>>15998859
As long as it cmes from a computer, people will believe it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 17:30:00 UTC No. 15999471
>>15999449
What does it have to do with this. Pic is a "driver follows GPS" accident.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 20:04:37 UTC No. 15999772
>>15999471
Isn't that too just blindly following what comes out of a computer without engaging the brain to consider the sanity of it all?
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 20:10:38 UTC No. 15999775
>>15996339
Dysgenic selection pressures assures civilization will recede in size and complexity.
Already stated by >>15996356. We're losing 1-2IQ points/decade. Starting at 100 now, we've less than 300 years till we're as bad as africa which is clearly incapable of civilization.
Civilization will collapse due to dysgenics. Not much more interesting stuff to be yielded from here on folks sorry to disappoint.
Only bright side is this is a cycle that can be stopped by eugenics via genetic engineering, but good luck getting the communists to fuck off. Watch Ed Dutton.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 20:14:10 UTC No. 15999779
>>15997204
No, civilization will "collapse" (reduce in complexity & population rapidly) due to dysgenics. The only above replacement fertile group are types where both parents are subhuman retards on welfare. e.i unfit to support let alone improve civilization.
We need eugenics. That doesn't mean exterminations of forced sterilizations, that just means removing proactive dysgenic state interventions in the market (essentially everything), and using free market capitalism in combination with genetic engineering to bootstrap the populations genetics in the face of dsgenics.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 20:19:34 UTC No. 15999788
>>15998333
>implying fraud matters
If it did the system wouldn't be functioning.
Either way AI will be regulated by government so only the state and corporations are permitted to use it. Just like radios, TV, and the internet.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 20:20:36 UTC No. 15999794
>>15998900
>it seems we have plateaued.
dysgenics
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 20:23:15 UTC No. 15999797
>>15998994
Their fatal flaw is a love of government. I suspect eugenics cannot work by using governments. Still be interesting to watch anyone try. Too much fakery in chinkland for any real progress.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 20:43:11 UTC No. 15999840
>>15999797
>Too much fakery in chinkland for any real progress.
No dysgenic welfare programs and tons of pressure to work hard and be successful, not to mention considerably more men than women among the reproductive age population, placing even more pressure on men to be successful if they want to have a chance among women.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 21:05:54 UTC No. 15999881
>>15999840
>No dysgenic welfare programs
Except being run by a communist party and being party member is a nepotistic ticket to success.
>pressure to work hard and be successful
Not at all. Chinese culture, mostly due to CCP rulership encourages nepotism and fakery above all. If you can cheat, cheat. Similar to Korea legalizing 21 hour work days, what is encoraged is the appearance of hard work and success.
Only a free market selects for that, and it does so without masters.
>considerably more men than women among the reproductive age population
Downside is any woman regardless of genetic inferiority will breed.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 21:16:16 UTC No. 15999897
>>15999881
>Downside is any woman regardless of genetic inferiority will breed.
Women are pickier than men. The opposite case, where there are more women than men, would technically be a bit dysgenic. The men would just have less difficulty finding a decent woman in the more women scenario, while the women would be quite a bit pickier when it came to choosing a man in the more men scenario. More men then women results in hypergamy on steroids. As a man, unless you got a bit lucky, you would only get a chance to reproduce if you managed to become quite a bit more successful than your other male peers. In the more women scenario, hypergamy would be suppressed, so the dating field would actually be fairer for men, but there would be less pressure on men to be successful, and the women would have to settle for less. It is hypergamy that is eugenic. Men just want a woman who looks good.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 21:24:14 UTC No. 15999906
>>15999881
>Downside is any woman regardless of genetic inferiority will breed.
Women are pickier than men. The opposite case, where there are more women than men, could possibly a bit dysgenic. The men would just have less difficulty finding a decent woman in the more women scenario, while the women would be quite a bit pickier when it came to choosing a man in the more men scenario. More men then women results in hypergamy on steroids. As a man, unless you got a bit lucky, you would only get a chance to reproduce if you managed to become quite a bit more successful than your other male peers. In the more women scenario, hypergamy would be suppressed, so the dating field would actually be fairer for men, but there would be less pressure on men to be successful, and the women would have to settle for less. It is hypergamy that is eugenic. Men just want a woman who looks good. More women than men could still be eugenic, but men would be seeking out better looks more than intelligence or success in women. I also just realized that sex differences exist due to evolution, so men being pickier would have a stronger eugenic effect on women and women being pickier would have a stronger eugenic effect on men.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 21:28:41 UTC No. 15999917
>>15996339
Funny enough the future of Cyberpunk 2077 is more or less what I expect the real 2077 will look like.
For a work of sci fi very few of it's predictions (Barring the actual alternate history aspects of it's backstory) are all that outlandish.
The only technologies present in it that I don't think will actually exist by 2077 are the gravity manipulation technology seen in the anime, the relic (mind uploading) and AGI superintelligence.
Everything else seems plausible if maybe slightly exaggerated, for example we will undoubtedly have cheap full range of motion prosthesis for any body part which can be controlled through pairing to the brain via BCI but I'm doubtful if they will be good enough to provide superhuman capabilities, nor do I imagine most people would be willing to remove perfectly functional natural limbs even if they were and instead go for wearable tech alternatives.
>>15996356
When people picture "civilization collapsing" what are you actually talking about? Do you just mean economic crashes?, another world war? Or do you think the whole world is destroyed and humanity is extinct?
The first two I could see but the last is absurd.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 21:30:12 UTC No. 15999920
>>15999788
>If it did the system wouldn't be functioning.
Anon, academia is in a major crisis, there is fraud everywhere and a growing underground movement trying to defrock the frauds, whi in turn are protected by the universities since the massive fraud also brings in equally massive funding.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 22:16:58 UTC No. 15999999
>>15999906
Yeah good point. It seems reasonable to believe women are more likely than men to choose a mate based off intelligence.
I wonder if monogamy is a requirement of complex civilization; loads of sexless men around means they can break things.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 22:18:21 UTC No. 16000008
>>15999920
It's probably dysgenics that's the major cause of the crisis. I'm willing to believe nepotism is part of it. Just shows you why never to trust institutions.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 22:19:03 UTC No. 16000010
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 22:20:29 UTC No. 16000013
>>15999999
>>16000010
HOLY SHIT, THOSE DIGITS!
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jan 2024 22:44:07 UTC No. 16000040
>>16000008
>dysgenics
>nepotism
What makes you think so? Seems more like moral hazard plus a system that benefits people with zero scruples.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 01:23:28 UTC No. 16000305
>>15996339
I am... Iron Man
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:05:16 UTC No. 16000351
>gene editing
>AI smarter than us in many areas but probably still not true AGI
>commercialisation and militarisation of space - the first true space warships will be created
>thorium/fusion reactors (I hope)
>superior materials manufacturing decreases defects and allows for the production of more capable materials - better stuff for armour, construction, space, whatever
>nuclear propulsion (I hope)
>permanent moon bases
>mars base which probably fails
>genuine nano machines (but probably still crappy)
>possible genuine cures for certain types of cancer
>the ability to regrow limbs and organs in labs and then transplant them on amputees
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:19:20 UTC No. 16000369
>>16000351
>but probably still not true AGI
If we throw leftist ethics out the window (Trying to force the AI to think like a leftist.), we could get true AGI sometime in the 2030s. The fact something like GPT4 already exists blows my mind. Research into AGI is already pretty intense, with many people from many different fields of STEM involved.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 03:16:49 UTC No. 16000426
>>16000369
>If we throw leftist ethics out the window (Trying to force the AI to think like a leftist.), we could get true AGI sometime in the 2030s
I don't think the barrier to AGI is an ethical one there just isn't sufficient understanding of how the brain works to make self aware AI.
If anything I think the avenue that will lead to AGI is biocomputation research, neurons are already alive and I think the secret sauce to consciousness has something to do with survival instincts cultivated by evolutionary pressure.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 03:29:59 UTC No. 16000447
>>16000426
Well, I still stated by the 2030s. I actually like how Microsoft got OpenAI to care less about ethics. From the 2022 Expert Survey on Progress in AI, around 50% of these experts believed AGI will have been achieved by 2050, and around 90% of them believed AGI will have been achieved by 2075.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2d
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 03:34:50 UTC No. 16000452
>>15998994
>I am so grateful I attended a private Catholic school from preschool through eighth grade
You're a gullible retard when it comes to China, so I wouldn't be that "grateful".
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 03:36:09 UTC No. 16000456
>>16000426
>If anything I think the avenue that will lead to AGI is biocomputation research
Isn't this sort of how neural nets have developed? Inspired by working theories of the brain and then optimized to solve a training problem?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 08:14:45 UTC No. 16000669
>>15999772
Yes, and that's what I worry that people will do.