You've heard of ironwood surely? Then why not iron cheese?

It's certainly possible that some people do, sincerely, 'fear' that the onrushing machine god will speak chinese and that it would be just the worst if all humans were rendered obsolete by the wrong side's robot when that's supposed to be our job; but, especially with how tepid the results are for the money poured in, it seems much more the case that we are seeing a lot of nakedly cynical playing of the 'give us what we want, lest the chinese win' by people who are otherwise on deeply shaky ground in terms of things like massive copyright infringement, voracious data mining, and an endless hunger for capital without any signs of returns.

It's like a vastly hypertrophied case of the 'race to 5G' stuff; where, if we didn't give Verizon whatever they asked for, China would have a faster rollout of 5G and we would lose the 4th industrial revolution or something? It was never entirely clearly what losing the race was going to involve.

The existential tone of the claims seem especially curious given how meagre the leads people are pouring billions into seem to be; and how readily 'AI' models can be poked at via distillation attacks or good, old-fashioned, electronic intrusion. If The Singularity kicks off that presumably changes everything beyond the powers of meaningful prediction(though that holds for whoever develops it as well as everyone else; given the odds that it will slip the leash); but as long as you are in the realm of incrementally more or less flakey chatbots it seems a bit weird to even talk like there is some sort of victory condition that will trigger and cause one side to lose.

Imagine how much more plastic and other petrochemicals you'd have if we stoppes burning most of it.

If you read around a few more articles on this, the new "scenario" assuming no changed regulations or programs anywhere, was added under "pressure". The IEA has some independence, and came up with the peak-before-2030 scenarios a few years ago.

OPEC+ reacted in horror and condemnation, of course, - how dare they effectively call it a sunset industry that will shrink through the 2030s - and set up their own predictions group that came up with a scenario like this one. IEA, (which isn't entirely independent, it's funded by governments, some of them petrostates, and takes funding straight from oil companies themselves) has been under pressure to add the OPEC+ "happy days" scenario to their own suite of scenarios.

The scenarios all have assumptions, and differ because of the assumptions. You can believe these are reasonable assumptions, and the earlier ones wildly optimistic. But a fifth of the cars sold last year were electric, and a quarter of the cars sold this year. The cars are getting better, the underlying battery technologies are improving visibly every year.

Bottom line, this new scenario is heavily influenced by those who would profit from it, and not likely.

An anecdote is not correlation. It's not even weak evidence of a correlation.

Skinner, 1948, "'Superstition' in the Pigeon."

https://psycnet.apa.org/fullte...

Modern models will take into account statistical biases in lotteries. For example, here's ChatGPT:

Pick good lottery numbers for the Virginia powerball lottery

Good question. First, a reality check: Powerball is pure chance — there’s no “good” numbers that are more likely to win. Every set of 5 white balls (1–69) + 1 Powerball (1–26) has exactly the same probability.
wwwuat.valottery.com
+1

That said, I can give you a few tips + a sample “random but balanced” pick, if you’d like to pick your own numbers rather than use Quick Pick.

Some tips when choosing your Powerball numbers

Spread your numbers
Try to pick a mix across the range (low, mid, high). According to lottery-strategy advice, not clustering all your numbers in one group is better.
samlotto.com

Avoid patterns
Many people pick birthdays, anniversaries, or sequential numbers. That’s fine—but if you win, you might have to share with more people because these are popular picks.
lotteryvalley.com

Use “due” or “hot” numbers carefully
Some sites (like lottery-analysis tools) track which numbers are “hot” (drawn recently) or “overdue” (haven’t appeared in a while). But remember: past draws don’t change future odds.
m.lottostrategies.com

Mix even and odd
According to some statistical analyses, it’s less likely to draw all odd or all even numbers.
samlotto.com

Play responsibly
Odds of winning the Powerball jackpot are extremely long: 1 in ~292 million.
lotterycritic.com

Sample “balanced” Powerball pick

Here’s a random-but-balanced combination you could use just for fun (or as a basis to tweak):

White balls: 8, 23, 41, 57, 65

Powerball: 12

If you like, I can generate 5 different “smart random” picks for the next Virginia Powerball draw (balanced by probability and number distribution). Do you want me to do that?

It's a damned shame '99942 Apothis' will miss us in a few years

It's not too late to fix that.

The thing is, it very much *won't* be random numbers. It's about as far from a random number generator as you can get.

In a really bad model, one would expect it to likely be "numbers it's seen the most in the context of a lottery". But in a good model, esp. a thinking model, one would expect it to think over which sorts of numbers are statistically over-chosen (birthdates, etc) and avoid them in giving its answers.

The funny thing is, think of how this woman will interact with ChatGPT from now on. ChatGPT could say "Abraham Lincoln was married to John Wilkes Booth", and she'd be thinking, "Okay, that sounds really, really wrong, but on the other hand, it picked the right lottery numbers, so..."

That's a trick question.

Answer: None. In 2025, Everything's Computer.

Just because some people want to put their penis into everything doesn't mean everything looks like a vagina.

Because the first thing I'm told is the most likely correct thing.

I'm not sure why the Internet thinks Bubba is Bill Clinton.

https://hero.fandom.com/wiki/B...

Economists can attempt to build a model that has some predictive power. And we can wait a year, a decade, whatever and throw out the models that don't fit reality. We've theoretically been doing this for 250 years but there is also a very good reason most of us think economists are full of shit.

And the people who are into having a camera in their bedroom want to get paid per minute.