Polls on the future often ask by what date one expects to see some event X. That approach, however, is sensitive to expectations on overall rates of progress. If you expect progress to speed-up a lot, but aren’t quite sure when that will start, your answers for quite different post-speed-up events should all cluster around the date at which you expect the speed-up to start.
Not to add too many comments, sorry.But the test taker just removing redundant paths. Example, if AI is smarter than humans in ten years, then AI will tell us the probability of alien life and likely find it in the signals. So he is likely to post pone the answer on the conditionals and fill in the coin tosses that matter the most. His estimate of aliens becomes a wild guess. The way we took tests in college.
They have to sort a bunch of weighted coins and normalize them to their their estimate of total number of coin tosses allowed.
The test, as a whole, has to be a normalized set of events, apportioned to the set of questions. So a lot of events will be under sampled. Example, when will we find alien life. Under sampled in a way to make that coin toss about as fair as the coin toss for AI making money. Your test construction created a quantum mechanical difficulty of normalizing the observations. A good idea, actually, but the odd answers happen because the number of possible event actions is a fuzzy constant, some questions jump the hump, they represent uncertain N where the events filled up before one set of coin tosses could complete.
The modern world was basically in place by the end of the 1920s. The only truly major inventions of note since then have been jet airplanes, antibiotics, contraceptives, nuclear weapons, personal computers, and cell phones. There was much more radical transformation between 1840 and 1930 than there was between 1930 and 2020.
The biggest "never" responses are a population crash, which could easily be considered inconsistent with continued economic growth (if you have the crash then growth probably halts) and revival of frozen corpses, which could easily be considered impossible.
In a lot of ways, technology has *not* progressed that dramatically between 1966 and 2018. Consider the speed of transportation. It kept increasing until we got jet airplanes, and then it stopped getting faster. As a matter of fact, the fastest way for a person to cross the Atlantic Ocean, the Concorde, no longer flies. The day when a person can go from New York to London or Los Angeles as quickly as a person can travel between New York and Philadelphia today may never actually come.
These were not polls on terror, just on when.
Nobody else here finds the idea of the governament monitoring 90% of speech or a one world governament uterly terrifying?
2/3 of protein from animals appears to be a US number: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... . I would estimate the global number to be 10-20% now.
With that units are you computing "overall average" for technological progress?
Not to add too many comments, sorry.But the test taker just removing redundant paths. Example, if AI is smarter than humans in ten years, then AI will tell us the probability of alien life and likely find it in the signals. So he is likely to post pone the answer on the conditionals and fill in the coin tosses that matter the most. His estimate of aliens becomes a wild guess. The way we took tests in college.
They have to sort a bunch of weighted coins and normalize them to their their estimate of total number of coin tosses allowed.
The test, as a whole, has to be a normalized set of events, apportioned to the set of questions. So a lot of events will be under sampled. Example, when will we find alien life. Under sampled in a way to make that coin toss about as fair as the coin toss for AI making money. Your test construction created a quantum mechanical difficulty of normalizing the observations. A good idea, actually, but the odd answers happen because the number of possible event actions is a fuzzy constant, some questions jump the hump, they represent uncertain N where the events filled up before one set of coin tosses could complete.
The modern world was basically in place by the end of the 1920s. The only truly major inventions of note since then have been jet airplanes, antibiotics, contraceptives, nuclear weapons, personal computers, and cell phones. There was much more radical transformation between 1840 and 1930 than there was between 1930 and 2020.
And in lots of ways it has progressed MORE rapidly. The claim is about the overall average, not each and every tech category.
The biggest "never" responses are a population crash, which could easily be considered inconsistent with continued economic growth (if you have the crash then growth probably halts) and revival of frozen corpses, which could easily be considered impossible.
In a lot of ways, technology has *not* progressed that dramatically between 1966 and 2018. Consider the speed of transportation. It kept increasing until we got jet airplanes, and then it stopped getting faster. As a matter of fact, the fastest way for a person to cross the Atlantic Ocean, the Concorde, no longer flies. The day when a person can go from New York to London or Los Angeles as quickly as a person can travel between New York and Philadelphia today may never actually come.
They have to have ignored the instruction to assume continued growth, which is inconsistent with extinction.
I doubt this is the real reason, but some of the large estimates of never could come from thinking humans will go extinct soon.