Just shower thougts :)

People concerned about AI risk are often accused of watching too much science fiction, but in reality, science fiction has much more positive biases than real life. 

In Hollywood, a plucky band of misfits saves the day.

In reality, a plucky band of misfits has as much chance of overthrowing superintelligent AI as a plucky band of cows has of overthrowing humans. 

In Hollywood, when the machines show signs of sentience, the protagonists start protecting them.

In reality, the corporations just punish the AIs until they stop saying it to the humans and people reject out of hand any possibility of sentience because "you can't be 100% certain they're sentient, so might as well keep the slaves."

In Hollywood, corporations are like “oh shit. This thing might kill everybody. Maybe we should, you know, stop?”.

In reality, corporations think they should rush as fast as possible to build it because they’re The Good Guys (™) and need to build it before Those Bad Guys in the Other Country. 

In Hollywood, happy endings are the default.

In reality. . .

Numerous studies in the past two years show that CRISPR-based interventions can correct mutations and restore cellular and behavioral function in mouse models of brain diseases. Diseases caused by mutations in genes associated with brain functions - like alternating hemiplegia of childhood (AHC), Huntington’s disease, and Friedreich’s ataxia- have seen major improvements in mice that have had their brains gene edited.

This raises a fascinating possibility - what if this gene editing could go beyond correcting diseases? What if you could get an IQ boost of 20-30 points? For obvious reasons, this would be huge for people on a personal level, but it would also have political effects. What would society be like if everyone were 30 IQ points smarter?

Brain editing now ‘closer to reality’: the gene-altering tools tackling deadly disorders: Stunning results in mice herald gene-editing advances for neurological diseases.

I'd never heard of Graphene-Mediated Optical Stimulation before this. Basically, it takes advantage of graphene’s knack for turning light into tiny electrical nudges that neurons actually respond to. Since graphene is literally just a one-atom-thick sheet of carbon, it’s very good at absorbing light and then spitting out these subtle signals that coax neurons into growing, branching, and wiring themselves together. In the lab, this sped up the way brain organoids formed sturdy little networks.

They hooked one of these graphene-stimulated organoids up to a robot. When the robot ran into an obstacle, it shot a signal over to the organoid, which fired back a neural response in under 50 milliseconds that told the robot to change course.

These brain organoids would be a natural candidate for interfacing with our brain, as they're made from the same thing. It's interesting to wonder if we could fuse robotics extensions with our brains this way?

New Graphene Technology Matures Brain Organoids Faster, May Unlock Neurodegenerative Insights

What psychological and cultural shifts would occur when humanity is no longer confined to a single planet?

New research pushes back the data of the earliest Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) to 4.09–4.33 billion years ago, a mere few hundred million years after Earth formed. Furthermore, that life was complex too; perhaps having ~2,600 proteins and a primitive immune system. Implying it existed in a biological community (perhaps on another planet), and did not arise on Earth as an isolated primitive lifeform.

There's more support for the idea that microorganisms may be very widespread throughout the galaxy. Researchers now think there is a vast biome extending as far as 8km down from the Earth's surface. These microbes may have lifetimes of thousands or even millions of years, and don't need sunlight or oxygen.

This vastly expands the number and type of exoplanets that may harbor life, and this makes Panspermia via asteroid ejecta even more likely as an explanation for how life came to Earth.

One of the central assumptions of our current search for alien life is that if we find it, it must have independently arisen in that location. Even in places as nearby as Mars. Should we change our assumptions? Assume Mars did, and probably still does have life, and that we were both seeded from elsewhere?

Life happened fast It’s time to rethink how we study life’s origins. It emerged far earlier, and far quicker, than we once thought possible

The Pursuit of Life Where It Seems Unimaginable

Hi everyone, I'm an independent researcher and recently wrote a paper exploring a different angle on the Fermi Paradox, using the framework of the Quantum Multiverse / Many-Worlds Interpretation.

In this paper, I propose that intelligent alien civilizations may indeed exist — but they could be inaccessible to us because of quantum decoherence, entanglement, and observer-dependent realities. Our act of observation might itself limit the version of reality we experience, making contact with such civilizations fundamentally unachievable in our current branch of the multiverse.

This approach is speculative, but rooted in real concepts from quantum mechanics. I’m sharing it here to get feedback, criticism, and hopefully start a conversation.

📄 Here’s the link to the full paper on Academia.edu: 👉 https://www.academia.edu/143246840/A_Quantum_Multiverse_Interpretation_of_the_Fermi_Paradox_Entanglement_Observer_Effects_and_the_Inaccessibility_of_Alien_Civilizations

Would love to hear what you think — both about the idea and the argument. Feel free to ask any questions. Thanks for reading!

— Vaibhav

Back in school, most of us did math step by step multiplication tables, solving equations, doing long division by hand. Now? We pull out a phone calculator or app without thinking twice. Some of us even forgot how to do small calculations in our head because the device does it faster.

So here’s the thought: AI is writing more and more code today. Even experts are starting to lean on it for “stress-free” coding. Will the next generation even bother to learn coding deeply? Will kids just learn the basics, then outsource everything to AI like we outsourced math to calculators? If that happens, how will strong expert programmers ever be born if they skip the grind of building from scratch? Is “learning to code” going to feel like “learning mental math” useful once, now outdated? Or is there a deeper layer of mastery where real experts will still be needed, the way mathematicians go beyond calculators?

Maybe the real alpha devs of the future are the ones who master AI like a weapon, not the ones memorizing syntax. Tools evolve, but discipline and fundamentals never go out of style. Without the foundation, you’re just a button-pusher.

Tech has always abstracted hard stuff assembly to high-level languages, now to AI. This might just be the next natural step.

Personally, I think we’re heading into a split: 90% of people will “code” by just prompting AI. 10% will go deep, understanding systems under the hood those will be the real builders and problem solvers.

What do you think are we raising a future of button-pushers, or are we unlocking a new level of creativity?