Well I think the chances are there ready to be taken, it is not Easy to have that kind of luck, but there are many who have been able to enjoy not only one whale but many more, this is something that always gets In evidence , when you see some who say that they always have passive income in a casino without doing anything, I think they refer to this type of earning, and if the whale player is very active, I think the person's income will always be very Well , this is a very profitable business where only those who have good friends take advantage of it. I have seen some people that have only one down as affiliate marketers and they are not making any attempt to make any improvement to that situation, this could be the reason why some people see affiliates as a waste of time.
I think you're on point to that considering being an affiliate means you need to have good connections across most industries. What I mean on across industries is that anywhere you'll find a gambler, they might not be seen on their physique but we have lots of gamblers. These days to be an affiliate means you need to try all platforms where you will need those links, you'll never know who you might end up convincing. You would really be able to realize for yourself on what are the main qualities or things needed up if you do really have plans on making that affiliation on a certain site or company on which it is really indeed true that you would really be needing that huge network if you would really be tending to solely focus for this kind of motive or target or trying out to utilize those things for your benefit or advantage. We know that there are indeed money which you could be able to generate if you do really just know that certain field or something that would really be your expertise on which it would really be that having the advantage but most people would be saying that this isnt really that worth since the bonuses or amounts been involved isnt that much if we do speak about ref bonuses or whatsoever in correlated to it. When it comes to affiliates and all that kind of thing that players can earn passively through casino programs, it is something impressive, one could not say less, because I have also thought that things here can happen in many ways, the Firstly, the casino offers this way of playing and earning money. Another thing is that the casino is open to proposals from the community, and thirdly, when the casino sees that it can do more for its community, it rewards them with gifts, for example in the casino. Betfury have a program of passive earnings just by buying the token, it's not bad, but I don't know how profitable it is for the casino in the end, but it's on a decentralized exchange, which doesn't guarantee a constant flow of people entering. We can also see that when things are like that, if the casino is not interested , it no longer trusts that inflow of money, but rather concentrates on its own games, then this flow of people will always consider or miss that they want to win the money again. uqe used to win, the trick here is that if a casino offers something that benefits the players, it should not stop offering it , because going against the community means the failure of the casino. Before diving into the nuts and bolts, the idea of "easy" passive income from casino affiliations appears appealing. After all, the casino is not some kind of charitable organisation that gives money to its partners as a gesture of kindness. Instead, its a complex enterprise in which the winners typically come from the losers. This skewed perspective colours the whole thing in a cynical light. In addition, initiatives like token purchasing water down the casino experience. By diversifying its revenue streams away from its original business model - gambling -the casino risks becoming little more than a commodity in the long term. A casino isnt supposed to be like that, right? Last but not least, casinos are within their rights to stop providing players with some profitable services. Its simple to label them as traitors, but perhaps they're just doing what has to be done to ensure their own survival. Its just the harsh truth of the cutthroat economic world, not a betrayal. |
|
|
|
That sounds interesting, only that when an AI is trained with a human and with human logic the AI learns much more and faster, so all those teachings can be quickly digested by the AI, and if so the AI thinks much faster that the human being and once the AI has learned human logic is much better, I think that for an AI to learn something like this it takes hours, or the time that the human being teaches the AI, there it depends on the human being that I try to teach everything I can to the AI, of course in a very logical way and only in this way will the AI be able to overcome human logic and abstract thinking considering the risks and errors of the human being caused by emotions.
It seems to me that quite interesting is just the question of the correlation between the iron logic of AI and the manifestation of some kind of emotional reactions by AI itself. If the person teaching AI is emotional, then partly emotional reactions and decisions can of course begin to be reproduced in decisions that AI prints on its own without human participation. However, I think that the emotional component in AI decisions will still be tried to be minimized by its teachers. And then AI will become completely uninteresting, although all its decisions and recommendations will be strictly logical and corresponding to the optimal solution based on the array of initial data that AI has at the moment. But the dataset may not be complete and may not even include any element of information critical to the alternative solution. In such a situation, the emotional component in the final decision could just help. But I'm not sure that this is the vector of programming for AI that is supported by the majority of the scientific and technical community, which is now engaged in the further improvement of AI. Yes, indeed, when it comes to training and including emotional things in an AI, it is something that we can expect, but having the intelligence of a person and being able to react based on those emotions is perfectly controlled by an AI. It is the advantage that everyone wants to have at some point to be used for any type of event, of course here we focus on casinos, games of chance and especially sports betting, since things in sports betting can be something that we can intuit or hit. Predicting, with the help of an AI, would be something far superior, it's like a Ticket to Success. We think that the expectations of all people are that the AI does everything and wins everything as if nothing had happened, but that is something we have seen in science fiction movies, that is why it may not surprise some, because at some point the AI will be In this way, I do not know how the sense of bets and casinos will be, it may also be controlled by another AI, but if the chances of winning for a person are minimal, I do not want to imagine if it reaches that level, I weigh them here Things can be reduced that can be trusted more in traditional casinos than online casinos. Its true that AI has the potential to give us a leg up in terms of prediction, but what does that mean for the honesty of these endeavours? Isnt the excitement of taking a chance against the odds and the element of surprise at the heart of gambling's allure? The complexity of human thought and behaviour are ignored at your peril if you bet on AI as a definite winner. Artificial intelligence cant duplicate the excitement, tension, and adrenaline rush that come with gambling. The idea of AI-controlled casinos is gloomy because it transforms a lively and interesting pastime into a cold and mechanical one. Further, the prospect of AI dominating such a field brings up questions of ethics and risk management. The introduction of AI into the gambling industry may have far-reaching consequences, ranging from exacerbated addiction to financial catastrophes. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Lottery here in our country runs a charity where people could ask for financial assistance when they are sick or badly need it for health emergencies. I have not tried it yet but I have seen people who go there, queue, and try their luck to be assisted.
IMO, it's a scam in disguise run by the government. I don't even know anyone who won the jackpot yet to fill in the facts that the lottery is really giving away the amount posted. I mean, a real person who could tell the story about it.
How can lottery be used for charitable means and can help residents. Those who need it must buy the lottery first, while the need cannot be postponed until they get a win from the lottery, even though winning the lottery is very difficult and not as easy as we imagine. If this kind of practice continues, I'm sure that instead of providing relief and convenience, it will actually bring difficulties. I agree with you, maybe it's just a covert fraudulent practice in the name of help. Lotteries can actually be used as a charity only if the organisers of such event will channel to profit made from the ticket selling to donating to the needy, charity organizations etc. Aside the above, I don't see how lotteries can be used for charity, asking the needy and hungry to buy a lottery ticket might mean a different thing altogether to him or her because one who is hungry first need money to feed before any other thing, I did rather ask the needy to focus on improving their standards of living, than play lotteries, even though there is a chance he or she may win, there is still a higher chance that he or she may lose the little one he or she has. The reality is, it's not about asking the needy to play but rather leveraging those who willingly participate. The generated profits can be earmarked for philanthropic purposes. After all, isn't it better to utilize a system that already exists for the greater good, rather than dismiss it outright? Moreover, your argument neglects the empowerment lotteries can potentially offer to the needy. By participating, they are given a chance, however slim, to radically change their lives. Many may argue that it's a false hope. Still, in an often cruel world, isn't hope of any kind better than no hope at all? Of course, it is a moral dilemma. We should be creating conditions for sustainable betterment rather than breeding dependency on luck. Yet, who are we to deprive someone of a potential lifeline? |
|
|
|
|
To dismiss luck as irrelevant and declare poker purely a game of skill would be overstating the case. Both chance and skill are essential to the outcome of any game, including poker. While a more seasoned player has a statistical edge, the luck of the draw can always swing the game in another player's favour.
The analogy to chess is, well, not perfect. In a game of chess, all of your opponent's pieces and their prospective actions are completely visible to you, while in a game of poker, certain information is concealed from you. Because of this, bluffing becomes an essential part of the game of poker. Therefore, it is more of a subjective than objective comparison to say that poker is easier than chess.
|
|
|
|
`
This basically goes to the plane of psychology, if a person does not have enough strength to take certain things and risks in the game, then they should not be in a casino, because we as human beings and thinkers know what are the risks that casinos. they bring, and this is something that is evidently seen in each person when the addiction is not controlled, it is an unfortunate situation, but obviously many things can be done to avoid it, among them the so-called self-control because for many it is difficult to get there, but with a good experience can be done or achieved, even much more, everything also depends on the personality of the person in how he faces certain difficult situations. For this, it is always best to bet with little money, there is no other way, if you bet little money and lose, it hurts, but not as much as losing a lot of money, these are the things that one should consider when making a bet , or enter a casino to make any type of movement. Im not sure that minimising risk by placing modest wagers is the best strategy. Essentially, you're telling us to expect modest failure. To me, this reflects a defeatist mindset. It's all or nothing in life. Why take any kind of risk if you're only going to give it a shoddy effort? Contrary to popular belief, casinos do not provide devilish games all the time. These places are full of potential and possibility. A lot of money can be made or lost there. The anticipation of a lucky draw or lucky roll of the dice is indescribable. It's not always about the cash, but rather the thrill of the chase. Some people go to casinos for the excitement of the high stakes, the element of surprise, and the thrill of taking a chance. They are aware of the risks involved and choose to go nevertheless. This isnt a bad luck occurrence; it's a deliberate decision. Being able to appreciate something while still being aware of the potential consequences is the core of self-control. |
|
|
|
Honestly if you have started to take the interest just now then you should give more time before you can understand the game. I used to be like this before, whenever someone used to start talking about some games then I was like feeling enthusiastic and motivated about that game but in reality that’s just good hormones pumping when you are around that game enthusiast. It does not mean you can start understanding the game right away and be master of it. Everything starts with basics. You should know the game basics itself, how it is played, how the points are calculated and much more. Then one should start learning about the players and how they did in the past and much more. Then start betting on that game.  It is true that before learning something, it takes time to master that subject well. If watching a person playing a game inspires you and encourages you to play that game, you should definitely know. If you play the game a few times then it is not possible to get everything just by playing inspired so in that case you need to know this clearly first. It is necessary to have complete knowledge while playing games but you can achieve success by playing games. Before placing the bet, you have to keep in mind that the past performance and current performance of the players you are betting on will ensure you win. And after knowing all these things clearly and gaining general knowledge, then betting will definitely be possible to win in betting. Success in games - and life - depends on a complicated mix of talent, strategy, chance, and sometimes surprise. Understanding players' previous and present performances can help with strategy, but it's not failsafe. Consider a poker player who routinely bluffs. Given their track record, one might bet against them. What if they change strategy next round? Thus, even if you know their history, you may lose your bet. Knowledge is important, but depending only on it for success ignores the complex dynamics of games and betting. |
|
|
|
Even though you have not know the concept of everything concerning gambling at list you that gambling is something I know that many people who is involve in gambling have not taken it as source of money, because they do they would not have continue to gamble to this extent because I know that gambling is something that I know quite well that majority who addicted to it lose more than what they expected to win, but I understand on my on way that gambling is something of choice and some people are involving their self in gambling because of happiness they trap doing it
Its true that most gamblers lose more than they win, which develops a vicious cycle. Thats hardly a prize. Its fascinating that individuals keep playing despite the obvious and repeated defeats. Perhaps they regard it as a type of amusement, a high, rather than a serious business. In that way, gambling becomes a game, a rollercoaster of victories and losses that thrills like no other activity. Yes, its a choice, just like eating dessert when we know it's unhealthy - unique entertainment. Just keep in mind: the house always wins |
|
|
|
First of all its going to take some time before people could see and make any type of adoption because things do not get adopted in a single moment, it takes time before it gets adopted and that's a very normal thing. You do not see people all starting to use the same thing in a single day. Even back when money was invented, it was used in a particular part of the world, it wasn't like it was created one day and next day all the world was using it, it took centuries before everyone stopped using barter and started to use gold. Long story short we are going to need some time, and of course we are going to need technological literate people as well, older people are having a bit of a trouble about it currently. But in the future even older people will be capable of using it because we would be the old ones.
You state that widespread use of cryptocurrency will take some time. I see your point. However, I would argue that it is less about time and more about necessity, based on my own inflated sense of knowledge. Today's society embraces new technologies at a breakneck pace. You make a false comparison when you say that it took millennia for money to become widely used. Cryptocurrencies are not a new idea like money was. What we have now can be found in digital form. I find it a terrible pill to swallow that you bring up the difficulties of the elderly. If the motivation is great enough, people of any age can change. I've witnessed seventy-year-olds learning how to use iPhones like it's nothing. If cryptos really prove to be as important as you claim, then its adoption would be inevitable across all age groups. |
|
|
|
|
Loan Amount: 300 USDT
Loan Purpose: Personal
Loan Repay Amount: 330 USDT
Loan Repay Date: 7th of August, 2023
Type of Collateral: I do not have any, but I currently work at Stake campaign
TRX Address: TDQYd7iMac4rGSjV9uWxNbfQmHt18H7SUi
|
|
|
|
Leaving aside the confusion created by the OP regarding kyc wallets, something I've never heard of. One thing I've been thinking about for a long time is that the governments have mandated that any company that handles other people's money should ask those people to do kyc, so I'm wondering how long it will be before governments start chasing the wallets so that they start forcing their customers to do kyc, because from what I see it's a matter of a few years before we start seeing wallets asking for kyc, unfortunately the damn kyc is here to stay
and every day the situation tends to get worse, I myself am shocked when certain exchanges ask for proof of origin of funds, even being in a bitcoin market, such exchanges want complicated documents, but the most shocking thing is that I do not see any government doing inspections in the exchanges, so I don't understand why they are so hard on people when they ask for kyc, has anyone here ever heard that a casino or exchange was fined by some government because they didn't ask for kyc? Anyway, I hope that at least wallets are not forced to ask for kyc so soon
It feels like the regulatory authorities and us are stuck in a perpetual game of cat and mouse. Bitcoin was designed from the ground up to be a completely decentralised and anonymous digital currency. Still, here we are, going through the motions of KYC checks for cryptocurrency wallets. I don't like to admit that, but I think you're probably right. Given the worldwide push for rules, it may not be long until wallets also require KYC. It seems excessive for exchanges to demand confirmation of funds, right? But they're the ones attempting to follow the rules so they don't get in trouble with the authorities. It's difficult to predict how government inspections will go. Perhaps they are taking place unseen to the public eye. But I think we as a society have a duty to resist these intrusions into our financial privacy. Crypto was supposed to be our safe haven from these oppressive restrictions, but now it may be one of the first things to go. |
|
|
|
`
It is important to learn this information about what other traders are doing or how they are doing it before investing. This allows us to have an idea and learn from others if they have made mistakes. Crypto trading is always risky, but the returns are as high as the risks. There are things to look out for when learning about how other traders are trading. When did they trade, or what is the difference between when you traded and when they traded? There are limited events in the market that evolve in the same way. We should always be open to innovation. An investment made last month may not be right this month. Or even the amount we invest may change. So investing is an individual behavior. Investment is realized in line with one's expectations. Remember, acting according to the opinions of others may not always be the right decision. Have your own opinion. You raise a good point when you say that traders can get insight from the experiences of others. But here's how I see it. Trading cryptocurrencies requires a certain amount of luck. It's a roller coaster of ups and downs that can be equally rewarding or devastating. We'd all be rich if mimicking someone else's success was all it took. Certainly, timing plays a crucial role in the financial markets. But that's only a small part of a much larger mechanism. When market conditions change even slightly, the results can be very different. Therefore, it may be futile to attempt to imitate another trader's timing. Investing is a highly individual process. Your investing choices should reflect your personal long-term goals, comfort level with financial risk, and outlook on the market. After all, the cash is yours. You should never let the opinions of others sway your final choice. |
|
|
|
Banks are regulated and supervised by government entities, which provides certain protections and guarantees to depositors, however, as many of us know, these have other problems such as privacy and centralization, I think both have their advantages and disadvantages because as you say that Blockchain technology ensures protection... there have been cases of bitcoin theft in the past due to vulnerabilities in the exchange platforms or security errors in digital wallets.
I personally prefer to keep my money in Bitcoin, but only to see it more as a long term investment, the real approach that we should implement to the bankers would be that, to make them see that Bitcoin is an excellent investment method, since as some commented not in all countries this Bitcoin as legal tender and that brings difficulties for countries that do not have this benefit.
The banking industry, under government 'protection' and regulation, resembles something out of a play, with the banks playing the roles of actors and the government playing the role of the director, while the rest of us can do nothing but watch. Centralization and privacy concerns are really a subplot in this carefully staged show. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is a welcome change of pace, even if there are occasional security flaws. At least it's not an act; at least it's real. While I agree that Bitcoin can be used as a long-term investment, I believe it has far more potential than that. Motivating financial institutions to see Bitcoin as an investment option is only part of the problem. Getting people to see the flaws in their own system is the goal. That Bitcoin's rise isn't random, but rather a reflection of their own shortcomings. Its true that Bitcoin isnt recognised as currency in all countries. However, thats just Scene Two, right? The lagging nations will inevitably suffer the effects of this. Bitcoin's popularity isnt going away anytime soon. |
|
|
|
|
Speaking from experience, integrating Bitcoin into traditional businesses, such as your mom's tailoring shop, is far from an effortless stroll in the park. However, I firmly believe in this cause, and it is worth every bead of sweat. Some would argue the challenges posed by your government and currency valuation make this a futile endeavor. I challenge such defeatist thinking!
While I respect your desire to hodl, think about the potential benefit of accepting Bitcoin payments and converting a portion into your local currency. This could cushion you from extreme volatility while still allowing you to benefit from long-term growth.
And for the love of Satoshi Nakamoto, if your government is lukewarm towards Bitcoin, let's show them what they're missing out on! Public opinion can and does change policy. Let your mom's shop be the Bitcoin torchbearer in your community.
|
|
|
|
|
POS gives a few stakeholders control, but doesn't POW too? Who can compete with China's megamines? How decentralised? POS's issues are valid. However, objectivity is essential. Problems are solvable. Ethereum is fighting them. POW's energy issue is very difficult. POW is Bitcoin's robust foundation. The holy grail? Still arguable. POW isn't perfect, even as we optimise it.
POW improves decentralisation and reliability, but it may be improved. As a healthy sceptic, I must add that POW may be Bitcoin's best strategy, but it's not flawless. Despite our attachment to present systems, we must remain open to new ideas and improvements
|
|
|
|
At some point, some persons who even participate in signature campaigns and earn bitcoin without having to buy directly, who should have been the most persons to have some good figures in their portfolios still aren't having any because most of them either withdraw this earnings to fiat to be able to make ends meet or withdraw it to solve some issues but whatever the case be, alot of persons aren't hodling currently now not because they are ignorant or even procrastinating but I believe one of the major reason is because they don't have to means to invest.
Everyone on this forum is aware of bitcoin and what it may become in the future; the problem is simply a lack of funds and investment capital. No one wants to miss out on the upcoming bull run, but it is difficult to invest when you are already struggling to pay your bills and take care of personal issues. Nevertheless, I believe we all have plans for how to raise the necessary funds. You will learn that there are always problems to fix and that the money won't be enough to tackle these problems even after participating in the signature campaign and receiving payments. People that have upper hands of investing are those that have multiple jobs, more like someone who has a well paying job outside the forum and still participates in signature campaigns that way they can easily save their bitcoin earnings because they are not dependent on it. I currently own a little amount of bitcoin, but I want to own more, so I've been intending to add even 10 dollars' worth of it each week from my signature earnings. Over time, regardless of how long it takes, the amount of bitcoin I own will grow. I don't think I'll ever be able to save, and if I don't do this and I might miss the bull run. My friend, life is a never-ending series of challenges and rewards. You show great tenacity in wanting to raise your Bitcoin holdings despite financial limits. However, it is critical to recognise that currency, whether in the form of Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency, is only a tool. We are hampered not by a lack of resources but by a lack of creativity. Those who work more than one job may have more investment opportunities, but they still have to deal with the same time and energy limits as everyone else. Try not to take yourself too seriously while you go about the process of amassing Bitcoin. The satisfaction of investing comes not just from monetary gain, but also from the knowledge and development it fosters. Consequently, you should put in both time and money into education. No matter the market conditions, that's the best investment you can make. |
|
|
|
`
Of course, people have different characters and behaviors, but sometimes, many begin to act spontaneously and not deliberately under the influence of external factors. Recall, at least, the hype of 2017, when only the lazy didn't buy cryptocurrencies. A lot of people, including me, practically didn't study the projects, didn't delve into all the subtleties and details, which led to losses. Many projects either disappeared or never returned to those indicators. Why am I saying this? And then, that not everything is so simple and that bitcoin turned out to be not the worst solution (when compared with other cryptocurrencies) for spontaneous investments. If mention OP's post, then it would be most correct to say the following. If you have money, then invest in btc (having learned the basics first, but in general, it has a fairly low entry threshold and doesn't require extraordinary knowledge and skills). If not, learn more about bitcoin /cryptocurrencies and when you are financially and mentally ready, then invest. While the sentiment that people acted spontaneously during the 2017 crypto-hype is accurate, I argue that it wasnt simply a lack of knowledge that led to their losses. In fact, the issue was more fundamental: it was a failure to recognize the speculative nature of the market. Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency should never be seen as a shortcut to wealth, but as a tool for disrupting traditional financial systems. I agree with your advice of learning the basics before investing, yet I push it a step further. Learn not only the basics of Bitcoin but the entire philosophy of decentralization and how it challenges the existing systems. Regarding Bitcoin being the 'safest' option for spontaneous investments, I remain skeptical. Even Bitcoin is subjected to significant price volatility and its 'safety' is subjective to the risk tolerance of the individual investor. Bitcoin is more than just a safe investment; it's a bold stand against the existing system. |
|
|
|
|
You've made an interesting idea in advocating for long-term trusted trading connections, however this runs opposed to the core spirit of what Bitcoin represents: decentralisation. I think it's a step backwards to advocate for a trust-based system because that means going towards a more centralised structure. We might as well be asked to put our faith in the government and huge banks all over again.
You're right, there are problems with Bisq. Each and every one of them does. However, these problems can be fixed. Bitcoiners, rather than reverting to more traditional trust-based relationships, ought to concentrate on enhancing and perfecting these decentralised alternatives.
Also, it's risky to discount the importance of regulated markets altogether. Yes, they have their own issues, but they supply Bitcoin with the services and liquidity it needs to thrive in the current economic context. Throwing them out entirely would be like trying to save the world by drowning it in a bathtub full of dirty water.
|
|
|
|
`
As long as you are aware that gambling is a risky business and you may lose your money, then the rest is your personal preference and you can do whatever you want with it. There are some people who seriously think that they can get rich on gambling but we all know that's not possible and that's why I keep saying that it is not going to end up with anything good at all. I believe that we should be careful with what we are wishing for and if we end up gambling with all our money then we will lose all our money. However, if we end up with a good result eventually then we are going to realize it might be short lived. This is why if you know that it is risky then you are already ahead of so many people and will not be really doing any bad work at all. You've accurately depicted gambling's risks. Gambling is perilous, but understanding its psychology is also important. A gain, however modest, triggers a dopamine rush that veils reasoning and makes risky enterprise look worthwhile. Gamblers also believe in the gambler's fallacy, which holds that previous occurrences can affect future events. They continue reckless betting anticipating a different result. The lucky few who gain a fortune are outliers. Most gamblers lose money. Playing with fire is risky even if you know it. |
|
|
|
`
People think faucets are a waste of time because nowadays, with the rewards dropping drastically over the past few years, collecting more satoshis would take longer. Perhaps, those who use that faucet to collect free satoshis don't find it a waste of time because at least they can get it for free without having to buy it on the exchange. I advise you to buy bitcoin using DCA instead of a faucet or use both a faucet and DCA so that at least you can have more bitcoins. When the bull run comes, you might not be able to collect many satoshis, so you should set aside some of the money you have to invest in bitcoin. I appreciate your perspective and certainly see the validity of your advice, but I find myself skeptical of its one-size-fits-all applicability. Yes, faucet rewards have shrunk over time, rendering them less profitable. However, for beginners, faucets offer a valuable opportunity to learn about Bitcoin transactions and blockchain without financial risks. Moreover, suggesting DCA strategy is sound advice for long-term, stable investment. Yet, it disregards the appeal of faucets for those who may not have the initial capital to invest in Bitcoin via exchanges. While faucets may not yield considerable returns, they do offer a free, albeit slow, entry into the world of cryptocurrency. Advising people to set aside money to invest in Bitcoin, in anticipation of a bull run, is both wise and risky. It presumes future market conditions and urges investment based on prediction rather than individual financial capacity and risk tolerance. |
|
|
|
`
Here I doubt that such a rather artificial intervention in the brain and in the thinking abilities of a person cannot be assessed as the evolutionary development of a person. And this is something, such a human-robot that will appear after such an intervention in the brain at the level of modern technologies, perhaps it will be more like a cyborg or a terminator, but in no way like an evolved person. It's just that the process of brain evolution over the past 500-1000 years, as modern scientists who directly study the brain itself, its structure, neurons and other brain structures, has not undergone any serious qualitative change. So in any case, progress in the digital sphere will go much faster than the development of the human brain. At the same time, it does not matter what scientists have invented in terms of activation of brain centers in the system of biological processes. I doubt it will be otherwise. And AI, in my opinion, may eventually begin to pose a danger to humanity, as a new type of civilization that is nascent. By the way, much more resistant to external factors. It easily penetrates with relatively little protection both to a depth of 4000 meters in the ocean and in a vacuum in space, and can even settle on the Moon and other planets. You make a good point about brain-computer interactions deviating from human evolution. Also sceptical. Increasing our cognitive powers through technology may sound appealing, but it raises philosophical problems about our humanity. By incorporating machines into our bodies, are we becoming cyborgs rather than developed humans? It seems reasonable. The human brain hasn't changed in millennia, while technology has advanced rapidly. Our AI may outpace us. AI as an emerging society is scary. As you indicated, they may survive environments that humans cannot. As we approach unprecedented change, this topic is tense. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
