The greatest danger is creating a sociopath who does not care about any values beyond a very narrow scope. Like corporations. In fact, corporate management is probably the most obvious thing that AI can replace. Give it the goal of the bottom line and have it organize resources to reach that goal. That is essentially what corporations do and its likely AI can do a better job managing it than any human.

So the question is what human values are part of the AI mathematical model and how do you make sure they are incorporated and followed. The other issue is whether it is even possible to reduce human values to binary choices. Because AI, at least at this point, is a computer program that at root is making binary choices with binary information. How does it model compassion, anger or justice.

Not to bothsides you, but my point is that you're straying into the same territory, not that you are one. If I thought you were, I'd have said so. I am not precisely known for subtlety.

If there are photos and other documentation of polar ice reaching similar volume/area/mass/whatever from the 1800s or 1700s as today then that would be compelling evidence of no long term global warming. There wasn't any significant burning of fossil fuels until about the 1850s, a time when coal fired locomotives began to replace horse drawn buggies, coal fired ships were replacing sailing ships, and electric lights began to replace whale oil lamps.

I expect there's an argument that fossil fuel use was still pretty minimal up to the 1930s. World War One lead to a big change in industrialization of war, and that lead to industrialization of many other aspects of human civilization, and that industrialization tended to move from wind and hydro power to fossil fuels. With World War Two we saw another rapid shift in energy use. In the time between those two wars was when we saw hydro dam construction slow down as all the best spots for a dam were pretty much used up by then. The Dust Bowl made biomass fuels something of a scarcity, which would have lead to greater use of fossil fuels to make up for it.

I recall Neil DeGrasse Tyson talking about how there's photos of big cities in the 1920s (or something about that, I may recall the date incorrectly) being full of horses, and 10 years later they'd be full of automobiles. In ten years a horse went from being invaluable to worthless.

Where's the point at which humans were undoubtedly impacting the global temperature from the burning of fossil fuels? A wide range guess would be sometime between 1840 and 1940. So, if anyone can produce evidence of polar ice being at the same level as today at any time before this shift then that could be seen as disproving human caused global warming.

The problem is that until weather satellites were a thing sometime around 1970 we didn't have good data on polar ice. We have some proof of ships sailing through the "Northwest Passage" which can bring some doubt to human activity causing polar ice shrinking.

A quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The ships were "fortified" against the ice but that doesn't make them anything like a modern icebreaker. We can certainly open paths for shipping in polar ice today with an icebreaker, and people using shipping in polar ice as evidence of thinning out polar ice does not follow. Just because we can brute force our way through the ice isn't evidence of shrinking ice area/volume/whatever, it is merely evidence that we can build big and heavy ships. Being able to take a sailboat through those waters does prove the ice was pretty thin over 100 years ago, and that the world has cooled since in spite of humans burning fossil fuels.

When anyone claims we are seeing global warming causing problems then there should be a question on when in the past the global temperature was ideal. We know the world was warmer in the past with records of vineyards and wineries in the UK, as well as paintings and firsthand accounts of a "little ice age" in the UK causing ice over rivers being thick enough that people were ice skating there and communities holding festivals of sorts on the iced over rivers.

We know the climate changes over time so a call to stop climate change appears to be an impossible task. If we assume that humans could stop climate change then there would have to be some near global agreement on where to stop that change. Do we want rivers to freeze over during winters in UK? Or should we prefer vineyards in the UK? Can't have both.

Don't anyone call me a "denier" for my statements above. I'm asking that if we are to stop climate change then we'd need to have an agreement on where to make it stop. There will be places in the world that benefit from this current global warming, how can we deal with their opposition to continued global warming? Are we to bomb their coal-fired power plants? Are people willing to wage war on these people? Maybe not a shooting war as we could create an economic war to where they starve to death for lack of trade with the outside world, or perhaps migrate to other regions as "climate refugees" that others caused them to become.

Going up 50% in 5 years is actually a bit below average for the stock market. The long-term average is about 10% per year.

P.S. Thanks slashdot for not ripping me one for "AAA", though they are also a "christian" organization so I guess that helps and also works

The US sanctions on Russia have tanked trade with Russia already. Imports from Russia have been in steady decline for years. From what I've seen the US imported $3.5 billion worth of goods from Russia last year. That's a tenth of what it was in 2021. Russian imports were mainly fertilizer, uranium for power plants and metals. The US exported $525 million to Russia in 2024. Trump also threatened an additional 50% tariff on any country who purchased Russian Oil.

The US has a complete trade embargo against North Korea. Only things that get a special approval are allowed to be imported and those are almost always denied. So what's the point?

In comparison, the US imported $438 billion and exported $148 billion worth of goods from/to China in 2024.

I''m not defending the tariffs, but to try to make is sound like Russia and North Korea are getting some kind of leniency is disingenuous.

Efficiency can't really be gained by any reasonably built modern HVAC system. They're all pretty efficient. Your running cost mainly depends on how much heat your walls and windows are leaking. Oversizing the HVAC system just means you paid a lot more than you need to during purchase.

A 2.5 ton unit is able to cool your typical 2000 square feet house from 100 F to 72 F in 30 minutes. In fact a 1.25 ton unit is theoretically enough, but nobody's house is that well insulated. And most of the time your house wouldn't be starting off at 100 F.

Nearly 70% of voters didn't vote against it.

This is funny:

"For example, AGI could create false information that is so believable that we no longer know who or what to trust. The paper also raises the possibility that AGI could accumulate more and more control over economic and political systems, perhaps by devising heavy-handed tariff schemes."

So you don't need AI to do something extremely harmful like develop heavy-handed tariff schemes.

People can just be stupid enough to elect a fascist clown who will do it without the need to use AI.

There might be some who buys for Mario cart yet not likely given the cost and availability of expansion tracks for switch. Re-releasing the same exact Zelda games this time with higher frame rates is going to flop. Switch graphics have always sucked compared to all the other consoles. If this was something people cared about they wouldn't have purchased a switch in the first place and yet somehow they now expect their customers to care about 4k HDR 120 hz... ...seriously?

If they expect to move switch 2 there needs to be much stronger switch 2 specific content and not just ports.

No. It's, but it's just as real as the tech bros telling us it's AI in order to shill investors while distracting them from the failing online sales and ad revenue streams now that people can go outside post-covid.