For me it’s Open Source AGI not controlled by the enshittifying power of capital

  • SavvyWolf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’d like to see fusion power (or some other good power source) become a thing. It’d be nice to live in a society where energy usage was basically safe and free.

    If we’re being unrealistic, easy access to ftl spacecraft for everyone would be nice. Exploring the galaxy sounds fun.

    • merari42@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      The last time I checked fusion was …check notes… just about fifty years away.

        • gregorum@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Well, that was mostly right— until we actually built one. Now we’ve built 3 fusion reactors. It’s no longer theoretical.

          Now comes the phase of overcoming certain limitations wrt scaling up the tech to make commercially-viable reactors, and estimating that at about another 15-20 years (considering the rapid advances of the last few years) isn’t unrealistic.

          Before it was a question of, “can we even do this?” We’re finally past that milestone. Now it just a matter of the very achievable goal of scaling up the reactors. The timeline for that is much more predictable.

          • davidgro@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            Those scaling issues have always been the issues. We’ve had working reactors for over 65 years.

            “The first experiment to achieve controlled thermonuclear fusion was accomplished using Scylla at LANL in 1958.”

            And don’t think that the NIF ignition results are the kind of breakthrough that headlines make it out to be - that project is weapons research, and is not designed to produce power, nor is it anywhere close to doing so when the power to the lasers is measured and not just what the pellet absorbs.

            However, what’s new in the last few years is commercial investment in fusion, and I do think that it will make the difference that the last 65 years haven’t. Maybe even in the next 20 years™

              • davidgro@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                7 months ago

                You’ve been taken in by intentionally deceptive headlines.
                The energy absorbed by the pellet (what they are measuring as the “input”) is something like 1/20th or worse of the energy used to power the lasers. The output is greater than that “input” by a little, but again, nowhere near the actual energy used, and it won’t ever be at that experiment because it’s not designed for it, it’s designed so we can simulate H-bombs without setting off real ones.

          • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            The next major goal is still overall energy-positive output, right? We’ve only breached the threshold of output > input naively, without considering any external energy costs. I hope we get there though, it would be very neat!

            • gregorum@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Oh, no, we’ve managed net positive! That was the most critical achievement, and we finally did it last year! Not a whole lot, but we have. The problems we’re encountering now is dealing with the massive heat produced. But we just hit a new milestone in dealing with that, too!

              Progress is being made, and that’s (the heat) is one of the biggest factors now in scaling up. But it’s an achievable goal. The more heat we can handle during the reaction, the bigger reactors we can build.

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      What’s funny is that we DO have access to fairly clean energy already! Nuclear and renewables (not as much solar, until we solve the rare earth metals problem) are pretty darn clean. I mean… have you looked up Thoroum reactors? Those things are really neat, much safer and better for the environment, etc., but came just a bit too late combined with the nuclear scare.

    • ShouldIHaveFun@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      He said “technological” advancement, not “political”. I think the greed and slow politics is what is holding us back here, not technology.

  • promitheas@iusearchlinux.fyi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Evidence of life elsewhere in the universe. It would be so cool. I just hope its far enough we cant get there and fuck everything up for them (or that they cant do the same to us)

  • BallsandBayonets@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    7 months ago

    Lab-grown meat that is both indistinguishable from animal-grown and is cheaper. Bonus points if they can make bacon have 100% of our daily vitamins and minerals.

  • Fake4000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Sending someone to mars and keeping an eye on how he lives his life and survives.

    Would feel like a survival game let’s play.

    • AToM.exe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      ދިވެހި
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Sustained net positiv fusion.

      It’s plausible that we’ll see it in our lifetime.

    • t_berium@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s the first thing that comes into my mind when people say ‘you can’t spend that much money’, when thinking of being a billionaire.

      I would finance the living shit out of fusion technology. You know. For mankind and such.

  • morphballganon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    7 months ago

    Flexible, plug-n-play solar energy capture methods with more versatile applications than inside aluminum frames glued to huge hunks of glass.

    Like, a paint. I could just paint the south side of my house with the stuff and it handles my electricity demand.

  • kakes@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Room temperature superconductors. Not for any of the particular uses per se, but just because the world would go nuts and it would be interesting to see.

    • Num10ck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      so no more inheritance? no more younger generations getting their turn to control things? sounds like a nightmare scenario.

      • stoy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        7 months ago

        The previous poster spoke about defeating aging, not death.

        I mean if we kept the same lifespan as we have today, but everyone basically stopped aging at 35, you keep the energy and clarity of mind all throughout your life, but still die at 82 or whatever, I’d call that a win.

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      This is the big one. With infinite energy you can basically do matter transmutation and end most forms of commodity scarcity.

      • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I think the “promise” of fusion is a huge misunderstanding.

        I mean we already have a nearly infinite source of clean energy, it’s called fission. The only difference between fission and fusion is that fusion will be much more expensive.

        If you want a truly unlimited source of energy, we have those too, they’re wind and solar.

        Seriously though, the expectations for fusion are completely rediculous, when we finally do get it working, it will be the most expensive form of energy ever concieved. If the reactors use the standard method of generating energy, heat capture to run a turbine, it will also require enormous amounts of beryllium as part of the “blanket” around the reactor. How much beryllium will be needed? In the whole world, we probably have enough beryllium for 4 grid scale reactors, the cost of which would be astronomical.

        Here’s the worst part, over time those blankets would absorb neutrons, the materials would degrade and eventually the now radioactive blanket would have to be disposed of and replaced.

        The tldr is this - tokamak and stellerator style fusion reactors work great in theory, they will probably successfully make sustainable fusion reactions quite soon. But they may never generate electricity in practice, they’re a logistical and economical nightmare.

        I do think fusion could make a fantastic spacecraft engine however, I expect that will be a huge application.

  • Tazerface@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    7 months ago

    I want to see wide-spread adoption of organ transplants using decellularization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decellularization

    A 3d printer in every home and a larger one in each neighbourhood. Design our own stuff instead of buying garbage that falls apart.

    A self-hosted AI, which isn’t controlled by any bigtech company, would be pretty sweet.

    The end of surveillance capitalism.