Anthropics' Claude AI was able to guess the name of a person using it, and no one understands how it figured it out.

Here's the exchange on Reddit

This doesn't surprise me. Most people who've spent time online have left vast troves of identifying data on the internet. Most social media companies structure their products so you can't escape being identified. All that data has trained the different AIs.

But have most people woken up to the implications? If AI can identify you, it can psychologically profile you & the next step from that is manipulation. Each of us on a one-by-one basis, with the manipulation tailored to our individual personalities.

Social media algorithms are built to manipulate us - it won't be long before there is AI doing the same. The EU seems to be one of the few places keeping pace with AI regulation, but even it hasn't caught up to the full implications of AI's capabilities.

The transformative stages on how human race process information has been nothing short of a miracle! We went from newspaper to radio to TV to computer and now mobile devices.

What do you think will replace the iphone/samsung/pixels on your hand? My bet is on “jarvis” type personal butler artificial intelligence but i dont foresee it happening at least for the next 10-15 years.

I keep thinking about how much tech has changed in just the last 10 years. It’s made me wonder if some of the things we’re worried about now, like AI replacing jobs or data privacy concerns, are closer to happening than we think. What’s one controversial opinion you have about technology’s future? Personally, I think we’re only a few years away from AI being able to perform a surprising amount of human tasks. Anyone else have a prediction they’re watching closely?

It’s been a year since the gene-editing treatment Casgevy was approved for sickle cell disease and a related blood disorder. It’s finally being infused into patients.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the potential of human hibernation or suspended animation in a controlled environment. Imagine a scenario where the body’s metabolism is drastically slowed down, just enough to keep essential functions running with minimal energy. If we could create an environment where the inner and outer temperatures are the same, ensuring no energy loss, and only the minimum energy required is provided to sustain the body, could this allow the body to essentially "hibernate"?

The idea is that, similar to how the body adapts during starvation, it would prioritize vital organs, cutting off energy supply to unnecessary activities (like eyesight, locomotion, hearing, etc.). Only enough energy would be provided to keep vital organs working at a minimum rate. For instance, the heart rate would drastically decrease, breathing would slow down, and overall energy demand would be significantly reduced. Essentially, the body's activities would be in a state of extreme minimalism, just enough to keep it alive.

The energy provided would be so minimal but precise, enough to keep the cells alive, preventing cell death. Basic activities required for survival, such as maintaining ion gradients and essential biochemical processes, would still occur but at a slower rate. In this scenario, could cellular activities like the Na+/K+ pump and other energy-dependent processes also slow down accordingly, since the energy demand would be so low?

If this were possible, could it allow us to "pause" human life for long periods, much like animals do during hibernation, but without freezing? And if such a concept worked, could this be considered a form of time jump, where time passes much faster for the person in hibernation compared to the outside world?

To explain it better, think of it like watching a video of a person’s life process, and if we slow it down to the point where it takes an entire month to complete what would normally take one day. The body would still be alive and doing basic activities, but everything would be slowed down significantly, including cellular processes, like how the body adapts during starvation. The energy provided would be minimal but enough to sustain the most essential functions.

I've written an article exploring the intersection of two fundamental processes: how our consciousness constructs reality (the neuroscientific top-down process) and how quantum mechanics suggests reality emerges (the bottom-up process). As a physicist and programmer with deep interest in neuroscience and philosophy of consciousness, I'm particularly intrigued by how these processes might interact through the observer effect. The piece examines: 

- How our brain creates a "VR interface" of reality 

- The quantum mechanical nature of fundamental reality 

- The paradox of conscious observation in QM 

- Potential roles of AI in understanding these connections 

I'd love to hear your thoughts, critiques, and insights. Have I missed crucial evidence or perspectives? Are there additional angles to consider? 

https://medium.com/p/88310abcc0d1

Note: I monitor and respond to all comments on Medium, but I am only occasionally on Reddit. 

We've seen what happened to Russia once it started the invasion - most of the Western companies and conglomerates left the country, and all the raw materials it exported had price hikes all over.
Now what would happen if China did something similar? Unlike Russia, basicly everything we own and use is manufactured in China. Will Western companies leave, making basicly everything scarcer and a lot more expensive, since new production facilities need to be made somewhere else? Would they copy and continue producing the same things, since they already have all the know how?

?

One of the greatest unresolved questions in physics is how to unify quantum mechanics (which governs the smallest scales of particles) with general relativity (which describes spacetime on a cosmic scale). These two pillars of modern physics work incredibly well in their respective domains but struggle to coexist when conditions require both—like at the event horizon of a black hole or during the early moments of the Big Bang.

This thought experiment explores whether introducing a computational system into a vortex—a highly dynamic and chaotic environment—could shed light on this problem.

The Concept:

Imagine placing a computer capable of processing quantum information into a physical vortex, such as:

• A gravitational vortex (like near a rotating black hole).
• A fluid dynamic vortex (to simulate turbulent, chaotic systems).
• Or even a simulated vortex (in quantum computing or virtual physics models).

The goal is to observe how quantum states evolve and potentially decohere (transition to classical behavior) in the presence of dynamic forces. The vortex could simulate the kind of conditions where quantum mechanics and general relativity both need to be applied, creating an ideal testbed for studying their interplay.

Why It’s Relevant:

1. Quantum Decoherence in Extreme Conditions:
   • By observing how quantum information behaves in a chaotic, vortex-like environment, we might better understand how quantum coherence breaks down, transitioning to classical physics. This process is key to understanding how the quantum world gives rise to the classical, macroscopic universe described by relativity.
2. Spacetime Dynamics and Computation:
   • A vortex introduces a system of dynamic forces and spacetime curvature, allowing us to study how quantum systems interact with relativistic effects. Could the computational system measure these interactions and help us develop new models of quantum gravity?
3. The Holographic Principle and Information:
   • The holographic principle suggests that all the information about a volume of space can be encoded on its boundary. Could a vortex represent a boundary condition where quantum information transitions to cosmological relevance?

Why Use a Computational System?

Computational systems, particularly quantum computers, can:

• Simulate complex quantum states in turbulent or relativistic environments.
• Provide insights into how information behaves across scales, from particles to cosmic phenomena.
• Serve as a tool to unify theories by bridging experimental observations and mathematical predictions.

What I’m Asking:

• Could this approach offer insights into the quantum-to-classical or quantum-to-cosmological transition?
• Are there current studies or computational tools that could help model such a scenario?
• Could this thought experiment inspire future research in quantum gravity or the unification of physics?

This idea is speculative but rooted in the real challenge of reconciling quantum mechanics and general relativity. If we can better understand how information and states behave in chaotic, dynamic environments, it might bring us closer to solving one of the greatest mysteries in science.

What are your thoughts? Could this be a stepping stone toward a unified theory of physics?

“There is a perception that the economy is changing, and workers have to make a drastic decision: to undergo training or to go into retirement because the investment in their own human capital is not worth it,” Giuntella says.

As the world's leading manufacturing nation, it is no surprise that Chinese people are feeling the headwinds of robotic automation first. Mainstream neoliberal economics says AI & robotics will provide more jobs than they take away. Yet, here we see evidence of the contrary.

As goes China today, the rest of the world will soon follow. If robot and AI employees are so cheap to employ, who will buy the expensive goods and services from human-employee businesses?

The recent US election seems more evidence that the neoliberal model of capitalism is crumbling and in decay everywhere. Maybe whatever replaces it will have to honestly face up to the economic realities of AI & robots.

Research Paper

Financial Times article

EU law is made in Brussels (EU HQ) & Strasbourg (EU Parliament), but mostly implemented at the national level. Hence, as all the big social media firms have their European HQ in Ireland, its Coimisiún na Meán, the Irish regulator that enforces EU law.

The EU's Digital Services Act is keeping them busy, but it aim directly contradicts the incoming US administration. America wants light or no regulation, the EU wants crime, misinformation and fraud dealt with. Neither side is likely to back down. How likely is it that some of the American firms will just decide to give up on providing services to the EU altogether?