You seem to be humor-impaired. Or maybe functionally illiterate. It is really implausible that you have missed the first half of that sentence.

Getting a change of this nature implemented globally is exceptionally difficult and may well be impossible. If you believe anything else, then you are boundless naive.

The demonising is all yours. I did not say anything about the will of the farmers to help at all.

The scientists are looking for potential negative effects. I am saying getting farmers to implement this will be problematic. If you cannot distinguish the two, then you have no business commenting.

You start with fighting human stupidity and ignorance. In order to contribute to that, please go kill yourself now.

And if you take into account the problems of implementing this, then this becomes one of the most stupid ideas to reduce greenhouse emissions...

We have seen autonomous murder before. It is called a "lethal trap". Using a drone makes this not fundamentally different.

No, we are not seeing anything like it at all. What we are seeing is that utterly dumb mechanical things can be made to run very fast.

Actually, we do not even know whether strong AI is possible in this universe. That would at the very least require a credible theory how it could be created. There is nothing.

On other hand, said robot will cost > $100'000, the person able to maintain it will cost something like $300'000 per year and it will require expensive infrastructure that works. It will certainly "call in sick" and it will certainly not work 24/7. You have a romanticized idea of the reliability of machines.

It certainly has the same level of actual intelligence than any other machine that can be built today or in the foreseeable future. Strong AI is people romanticizing machines. The idea has not factual basis.

Understanding why we may never have strong AI (i.e. as dumb as an average human), requires actual insights into the the subject matter on a level you cannot acquire in a year or two. It requires much more. None of these peoples even have the basics. They are speculating without understanding of the known facts. These facts currently mainly strongly hint that the human brain cannot actually do what it seems to doing. Sure, there have been a few clever fakes of strong AI, but if you remember how utterly lost and without understanding Watson was at the Jeopardy questions it could not answer, you know that there is not even a tiny spark of intelligence to be had by means of technology these days.

That is pretty simple: Any actual AI researcher has to lie through his teeth to participate in this panic. The "thinking" explanation is strictly used for PR and to get funding in AI, as these people know better.

We do not actually have that example. We cannot observe minds working, we can only see the interface. And we get this observation only together with the observation of free will and consciousness. Especially the latter is not understood at all. Incidentally, we cannot describe what intelligence is, only what it can do.

So, no, the making of a mechanical observation and later mechanical reproduction has absolutely no meaning for the feasibility of strong AI.

As there is not even conventional evidence at this time that strong AI (i.e. only as dumb as the average human) will ever be feasible (in fact there are not even good indicators, but a lot of negative ones), this AI panic has exactly no basis and those participating in it are either greedy for the publicity or are not smart enough to understand the issue (or have not even bothered to try).

This is a complete non-issue.