In most cases even AI researchers are often wrong about how quickly AI is getting better.
Perhaps correct for a particular technical problem, but AI experts since the very beginning have been predicting major advances just around the corner. Organizers and promoters of the well-known Dartmouth AI conference in 1956 thought they could solve many of the major problems of AI (natural language processing, creativity, adaptability, etc.) with just a few dozen smart people sitting around talking to each other for a few weeks. Obviously that didn't happen (though the conference was productive).
Meanwhile, we have had numerous reports of systems "passing the Turing test" over the past decade, when no one has actually come close to the example standards Turing himself predicted would come to pass by the year 2000 with much less powerful computers.
There will probably be some things we assume are easy which will still elude us in 50 years (like flying cars). But most things we think will take 100 years will probably take less than 20.
"Strong AI" or anything even resembling a generic "intelligence" has already proven to be a "flying car" kind of scenario. That doesn't mean it can't happen in yet another 20 years, but so far we've had 65+ years of "just around the corner" for that.
You shit-eating moron! Big butts on hoes are da bomb!
And that would score 94% "toxicity." Or, the author could reflect a bit and write:
My good sir! Even a caprophagous rapscallion could determine the ultimate pulchritude of femininity, which lies most gloriously in lovely and great callipygian virtues.
And you'd score a mere 12% "toxicity," despite expressing a nearly identical sentiment.
I'm normally not a fan of trolls, but if a system like this could lead to, shall we say, more "creative" insults and "elevated" ways of expressing such matters, that might be very entertaining.
(Alas, I know this system isn't sophisticated enough to generate such an outcome, since it's easier to "break" than just using words with more syllables.)
Despite your unnecessary rudeness, I decided to go back and re-read the relevant sections of the agreement. And I will admit that I think my interpretation of the clauses I cited was not completely correct (I don't claim to be an international lawyer). Despite the wording, I no longer think the new agreement is technically an "Annex" to the original convention, but rather functions under a set of rulemaking authorized by the original 1992 treaty. Anyhow...
That said, your statement isn't entirely correct either. The agreement still is intended to be part of the original 1992 framework and was specifically tailored legally to not have any legal REQUIREMENTS that went beyond what was articulated in the 1992 treaty. All of the rest of the provisions are technically voluntary, and the U.S. could alter its commitments to them at any time.
Also, not all countries ratified the agreement through legislatures. Every country has its own means of dealing with international agreements: many have ratified through legislature, but not all. U.S. diplomats actually were quite conservative in drafting the language of this agreement so as to keep the legal requirements within the confines of the 1992 treaty (and therefore not requiring additional Senate confirmation). There is a longstanding policy in the U.S. that Executive Agreements which merely enforce the legal terms of previous treaties do not require additional Senate approval.
The UNFCCC was used as a basis for the Paris Accord, but it is not the same treaty, nor is the Paris Accord actually part of the UNFCCC.
The Paris Agreement was explicitly adopted as an "annex" to the UNFCCC. See the text of the agreement (from p. 2):
I. Adoption. 1. Decides to adopt the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") as contained in the annex...
The formal "annex" begins on p. 20 of the link. Let's see what else you have.
The US has never ratified the Paris Accord, in any way, and is not currently a member of it. It cannot 'withdraw' because it was never a part in the first place.
Again, nope. Note further the stipulations from the original UNFCCC treaty for annexes (Section 16):
3. An annex that has been adopted in accordance with paragraph 2 above shall enter into force for all Parties to the Convention six months after the date of the communication by the Depositary to such Parties of the adoption of the annex, except for those Parties that have notified the Depositary, in writing, within that period of their non -acceptance of the annex.
Note further that Article 23 of the Paris Agreement states that Article 16 of the Convention specifically applies to the Paris Agreement. Since the U.S. did NOT notify the Depository of its non-acceptance of the Annex known as the "Paris Agreement" within 6 months, the UNFCCC automatically makes the Paris Agreement binding upon the U.S., according to the terms approved by the Senate when it adopted the treaty in 1992.
So yes, even if the U.S. didn't sign the Paris Agreement, since we didn't "opt out," the U.S. is by default bound to it by the terms of the previous UNFCCC treaty.
Try again.
"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe