this post was submitted on 24 May 2026
30 points (82.6% liked)

Ask Lemmy

39693 readers
1074 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Flying Cars

I know many, many people want flying cars to be a real thing. But, what is always going to prevent us from having true flying cars is, look at how people normally are with the cars on the ground. Drunk driving is tenfold going to be worse with flying cars, people are going to totally fly their vehicles into buildings, for sure. I think the closest we're going to get to flying cars, is the hover cars we see in Back to the Future II that are more ground level, but hover. Even then, I don't know if we're ever going to be ready for them.

True AI

What I mean with True AI is an AI that can actually be a little more sentient and living than what we got now. When AI first rolled out, it really put a damper on everyone in so many ways that I don't think we're ever going to see it. There's just too much at stake to trust an AI with the capability to think on its own and do things on its own. We're just going to be stuck with Semi-AI that only talk back to you in text form and maybe help you code. And that alone already has ruffled the feathers of millions who are hating AI which is another thing to consider.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jaxxed@lemmy.world 1 points 56 minutes ago

Pretty much all interconnected systems that could use technology. No aggregate medical systems, no collectve smart systems for home, transit, energy

We cannot have star trek because google, ms and pallantir want to se them to own us.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Flying cars are not a practical technology at the moment because we don't have a way of making them fly. Unless you basically want to just redefine the helicopter as a car. Once we've solved the flying problem I think we'll probably just make themselves driving.

[–] GenosseFlosse@feddit.org 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Having helicopters or planes flying over your house at all times would be terrible noise pollution. As if the dipshits "tuning" their rusted out junkers or Harley bikers with erectile disfunction driving up and down the road where not bad enough already.

[–] jaxxed@lemmy.world 1 points 59 minutes ago

This.

Flying cars exist , but are just large drones. They are small, inconvenient, noisy, and energy hungry.

Drunk drivers won't be an issue, because they will self-drive.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

Neither are due to "society".

Flying cars need a load of power and would be very expensive to buy and fly. And one would need a pilot license, too.

True AI does not exist. What we have are LLMs, digital parrots with a large dictionary, that only appear to be intelligent because they produce convincing sentences.

[–] MousePotatoDoesStuff@piefed.social 4 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Widespread commercial nuclear fission power, for better or worse.

Thanks to the gross mismanagement of Chernobyl and Fukushima and over-reaction to it (EDIT: and also Greenpeace, see reply), it has been largely defended and derived. And thanks to renewable energy being more affordable than ever, it might no longer make sense to build it.

That said, flying cars and generative AI have one thing in common: they are more harmful than anticipated.

If we had flying cars, even if the crash problem was solved by making them autonomous and fully protected from cyberattacks and unable to perform terrorist attacks (good luck lmao), we would still have noise everywhere. Think low-flying planes, but constantly. (And, of course, the proponents of the technology would call everyone complaining about it Amish Luddites who want to "stop progress".)

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Nuclear was killed by Greenpeace, not only did they take tons of money from shadowy donors to bad mouth nuclear (they turned out to be fossil industry related), they did it via spreading misinformation and plain lies. Everything incorrect the public thinks they know about nuclear power derives from a Greenpeace campaign. The worst part is that coal has killed more animals and people than all of nuclear incidents combined, including the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Oh yeah, forgot about that. Edited to clarify, thanks!

[–] Sunsofold@lemmings.world 2 points 10 hours ago

We don't have dumb AI because we are afraid to 'let them off the chain.' This is pretty much it for LLMs in terms of capability. 'Agentic' might get a little better at some point but it isn't going to be 'real AI' without years of user data, years of training, and as-of-yet non-existent technology.

As for your question... I deny the premise. There is nothing to stop anyone if it is possible to do a thing. Right now, for the cost of a car, if a person had the knowledge and will, they could buy a synth bio lab for their garage and build a pandemic. You, just like so many others, could build a truck bomb capable of destroying a building. People regularly design destructive computer software as a hobby. People, mostly but not only Americans, can acquire guns and shoot dozens of people before anyone can stop them. There is literally no direct way to prevent any of these things. The thing that keeps us from having massive attacks every day is simply not many people have the inclination.

[–] Libb@piefed.social 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

my bad, it's not considered tech. Removed.

[–] ExFed@programming.dev 31 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Trains in North America.

We had them at one point, built the nation with them, then so summarily decided that the automobile was better, that we built all of our infrastructure assuming that nobody would ever not want a car to go everywhere, making it doubly hard to convince people that public transit doesn't have to suck.

[–] chunes@lemmy.world 7 points 14 hours ago

I live in a rural village that used to have a train stop. A train stop! Here! In the middle of nowhere. I think about it every day and it makes me angry.

[–] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world 16 points 20 hours ago (15 children)

Genuinely, adequate and extensive medical knowledge and technology for female bodies and people of color.

There is a colossal, glairing lack of medical knowledge and technology for female bodies and people of color. This is because of a millennium old issue of

  1. Patriarchy prioritizing the funding of medical research for men
  2. Racism excluding people of color from medical research, while downplaying the significance of their medical issues and their worth as people.
  3. Anti-science dipshits who oppose any and all sexual education among the masses and among experts because their magical sky fairy from an ancient text that's been mistranslated century after century tells them vaginas are gross and evil.
[–] akwd169@sh.itjust.works 2 points 13 hours ago

Yeah! Vaginas are magical and delish! Magically delicious, if you will

Hard agree

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] kip@piefed.zip 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

nanobots that fly up your arse and tickle your walnut. fuckin society man

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

A pill or vaccine that will cure everything and enable you to live longer and healthier.

[–] vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works 11 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Pre-birth DNA editing to ensure a healthy and ideal child.

Eugenics is awful. It's horrible. There is no question and there's a million historical and fictional deep dives one can do to objectively prove that it is against any form of morality you could possibly come up with.

But, improving the human experience, ensuring no one is born with a disability, ensuring that everyone has the best possible chance to enjoy and experience life would be amazing. If society could get its collective shit together we could in fact make sure that every person gets the best possible experience of our species. We could pretty much entirely eliminate childhood cancers. We could make super heroes (relative to unmodified humans). We could eliminate genetic defects that have plagued families and entire populations since pre-history.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 hour ago

Is it possible yet? We already have genetic screening which is actively used in many countries. IIRC downs syndrome rates are lower because of it being screened for now. But not everything can be screened for and we don't fully understand all DNA yet.

If you could cure these things with an acceptably low risk of negative effects I am pretty sure people would be in favour of it. The research for that sounds difficult though.

[–] KRAW@linux.community 4 points 18 hours ago (6 children)

Correct me if this is naive, but wouldn't this potentially also reduce the diversity of the gene pool?

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago

Maybe that’s the eugenics issue. Correcting genetic damage might be small and rare. On the other hand if everyone wants a blond blue eyed baby that will grow up to be a 6’2” Adonis, genius, super athlete, then yeah

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] etherphon@piefed.world 15 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

True all you can eat buffets.

[–] DokPsy@lemmy.world 20 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

"I ask the jury if this looks like a man who had all he could eat"

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 12 points 23 hours ago

I am one of the current generative "AI" naysayers. It's not society holding it back, it's the fact we don't know how to make true AI.

Now a classless system where everyone can be equal, that will never happen because of society.

Fair and true justice for all not just the rich will never exist because of society.

I don't see any tech not existing just because of "society". Even flying cars, it's the fact they're so inefficient and hard to make is why we don't have them, otherwise we could automate them.

[–] HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works 9 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

We have those in NL. A few other European countries as well.

[–] Mora@pawb.social 5 points 21 hours ago

I would not bet on that. For some countries retirement systems are collapsing, so that could be seen as viable solution for retirees that cannot sustain themselves...

load more comments
view more: next ›