That is true. So I guess that's another way to try to beat Moore's Law (or the lack of it).

Though the better the low-end models get, the less need for massive data centres as people can run them locally.

Don't forget Windows 11.

We had to buy two new PCs last year just because Windows 11 refused to run on the existing ones. That extra burst of sales is also over.

The brain is an analog computer. It's literally impossible to know the entire system state or how it will change in the next second.

An LLM is a digital computer. You can store the precise state and precisely determine how it will behave for aeons to come.

> If you see anything non-deterministic, then you just missed some variable when describing the input state.

It's epicycles, epicycles, epicycles all the way down.

How can consciousness have any meaning whatsoever if behaviour is deterministic?

As for insects, I would say if we can simulate their brain's neural network on a computer and the behaviour remains the same then they're clearly not conscious.

> So it looks like these AI companies need to stay alive for about seven more years giving away product at a loss, or at least highly oversubscribed, to turn a profit. Hence the low token allowance, the banning of OpenClaw, etc.

You're assuming that tech will continue to improve as fast as it did over the last twenty years... when we're past the end of Moore's Law.

At a minimum that would likely involve moving away from silicon to something we can run at much higher clock speeds, or finding a much more efficient way to run AI models than we're currently using. Possible maybe, but not simple.

There's personal atheism and there's The Cult of Atheism... which quite clearly is a religion.

Dawkins has been a militant atheist in the past. Didn't he help fund buses to drive around with signs saying that God doesn't exist a few years ago?

In Clown World, education makes you stupid.

It takes a great deal of education to believe something that the average guy in a blue-collar bar could tell you is obviously wrong.

C'mon man. That's what physicists have been doing for the last eighty years or so.

Yes. It's surprising how many people haven't noticed that Climate Change is now The Old Thing and The New Thing is full-speed-ahead to build as many power-hungry AI data centres as possible.

Lots of people don't understand that they're just tools for the same oligarchs they love to complain about.

All the Trump voters I know voted for a dictator, but Trump refuses to round up Congress and send them to a Happy Camp in Greenland.

And the actual record for CO2 in the atmosphere is about 6,000 ppm. Or more than ten times current levels.

The Earth was what many people would consider a tropical paradise at the time, lush and green. But that's bad, m'kay.

Spending money is the goal. They want to be able to charge us by the minute for playing their games.

Someone has somewhat integrated this into GTAV. I watched a Youtube video yesterday where someone was playing a cop in a police mod and stopping AI NPCs and questioning them. It worked quite well except that they didn't know a lot about the game world, so if he asked them "what colour is your friend's shirt?" it wouldn't know, but if he'd mentioned "your friend in the blue shirt" earlier in the conversation it would remember.

Yes. Life came close to dying out entirely in the last Ice Age because CO2 dropped to around 180ppm and plant life started dying off.

If we return to preindustraial CO2 levels then we get maybe two more Ice Ages before all life dies out from lack of CO2.

Plants evolved to grow in an atmosphere with around 6,000 ppm of CO2, or close to twenty times what we have today. They have been literally starving for tens of millions of years and complex plant life dies when CO2 gets below about 150ppm. Greenhouses pump CO2 in to increase growth the same way we give sick people oxygen.

Plants didn't evolve to be eaten, so I guess it's possible that somehow plants become more nutritious when starved, but it seems unlikely. Particularly when we've trashed thousands of years of good growing soil with decades of industrialized farming.

Here's one current example. My girlfriend is watching a detective show on Amazon Prime.

This is an American show where the characters are speaking English and the subtitles are English. Not even sure what show it is, but it clearly has a decent budge that could afford to spend a few bucks creating the subtitles.

Main character's daughter is fixing main character's computer and says "I exported all your data."

Subtitle says: "I extorted all your data."

Now, the girl's accent is a bit heavy, but it's clear from the context that she wouldn't have said 'extorted'.

You're right, movies are generally better than TV shows, but I've still seen some crazy subtitles on them in the last few years.