So at least someone enjoyed it

When I use a search engine, I'm often not looking to answer a question. I may simply be exploring. But even when I'm looking for a specific answer or fact, the search for it usually gives me additional information. It may just teach me additional facts, or it may lead me down sideroads to new knowledge and a new way of looking at things. The search seldom results in just an answer to a question - it broadens my horizons.

Maybe I'm a rarity, and the vast majority of people just get an answer and get on with their day. But I suspect that I'm in at least a sizable minority. So what will happen when everyone is allowing AI to pre-chew and pre-digest their informational meals? I see search engines as up-to-date encyclopedias on steroids with a killer random search feature. By contrast, AI seems more like an inscrutable oracle, giving an answer to a question instead of pointing to a bit of real estate in a vast field of knowledge.

We may lose something of profound value when AI replaces search engines, even given the ad-ridden, algorithm-ridden swamp that search has become in the last couple of decades. When I consider all the downsides of AI - and even when I ignore the truly dystopian aspects of it that are becoming increasingly evident - I fear the we're going to regret going all-in on LLMs and whatever they evolve into.

Not my understanding. Before and after work you are no different than someone who took a wrong turn into their parking lot.

Apparently even 2 step solutions are hard for you.

1. Green the demand / EVs

2. Green the Grid and magically the transport sector gets massively greener.

Since deniers and oil companies have delayed things decades, we're going to have to do both at the same time. They knew about this in the 70s and buried the studies b/c it would hurt their profits.

My government has forbidden me from buying their products.

You have another name for someone who does a sig heil and is the key note speaker for a German right wing party?

That's an exaggeration. You can give a LLM access to real things and they can use those real things to verify. I just flatly do not understand why they are not. It wouldn't make them infallible, but it would go a huge way towards improving the situation, and they are clearly not doing it. They could also use non-AI software tools to check up on the AI output. I'd bet that you could even use a plagiarism detection tool for this purpose with little to no modification, but I'd also bet this kind of tool already exists anyway.

It also shows that if the penalty is insufficient then they have no positive effect. A fine that people with a lot of money can easily afford is just a prohibition which only applies to the poor, with a license fee. Look to speeding tickets which scale with income for a fair model.

Because that's the term you people apply to everyone except, curiously, the actual folks who paint swastikas on synagogues.

Yes

I'm not against a human doing it, I just don't get why they're not having the software do it, when it's feasible for it to do it.

Generally its not too hard to hijack old hardware and add your own op-amps and whatever to the existing bias and drove circuits. Once you can get some signal in, even if you're just using your digital storage scope and some decently set up triggers you can crank though just about any old data set. Phase encoded, MFM, etc are all pretty easy to decode in software with a sufficiently fast microcontroller.

I used to get the two coupled like that until very recently. C didn't show up until around 1972. (UNIX was created in 1969). That factoid ended up being a minor plot point in a Chinese drama my wife is watching and I got it wrong, much to my embarrassment.