Not to mention an increase in damaging severe weather.

Even people who like it warmer probably don't like having their house blown away to Oz.

Unfortunately, it has a way of becoming your problem as they strain medical resources, continue to drive global warming and run around spreading their infectious diseases.

The key is to use the AI more sensibly. Let it find things in code. Even let it look at possible bugs in the form of where does it "describe bug". Even let it propose changes. DO NOT let it make the changes, just show them. Do not just take it's word for it, take the shown code as a starting point but re-do it for maintainability after sanity checking it.

THEN it can be a useful tool.

I had to add minimum paragraph and sentence counts to the prompts it uses to keep it from trying to write a few terse sentences each time.

I noticed this in Claude (from DDG). It invariably tries to shorten sentences or make them more compact and concise. Sometimes that can be good, but most times long-winded sentences are what are needed.

and there is no way I can find to make it stop popping up giant intrusive ads for their other services every single time I open it.

Just like Firefox. There is no easy way to turn off being harassed by an intrusive pop-up telling me about a new update.

There used to be. It was a simple checkbox. But somewhere along the way someone had to justify their existence and removed that simple checkbox in favor of harassment.

Would like to add one tidbit because I've had this same conversation at work. The professor stated they used AI to help edit only after hundred of hours of writing. In other words, they did the heavy lifting and only used AI at the end to help refine what they had already done.

Is this any different than a human editor? If I write a book, do what I can to edit it down, then go to an editor who makes suggests, removes or reorders parts, and so on, is that any different than having AI do the same thing? In both cases you wrote the words. In both cases you went somewhere else to help edit.

If people claim that using AI to edit a work is "cheating" because it's no longer your work, then the same should apply to a human editor.

It's not the SCREEN that does the damage, it's the brain rot the screen is used to access. Also the amount of time speant with the screen. Moderation is good. This shouldn't surprise people, but since it is a nuanced understanding and not just screen bad!, it will.

A related phenomenon is, Holocaust survivors live(d) longer. There is no good explanation and repeating the experiment is, thankfully, quite impossible...

Jesus Fucking Christ. It's 2026, Trump has been putting his boot on the necks of major networks and studios for a year and a half now. I realize you probably fell into a coma in 2016, but ten years later, the free press, regardless of what you think of it, or fair you imagine it is, is under direct assault. Fuck off with the "MSM" bullshit and grow the fuck up.

BOTH screwed up. The system shouldn't have made the match and the human should have done a better job seeing that the match was wrong. I'll go one larger and say the people who created the procedures screwed up because they didn't make allowances for the possibility of the first two screw-ups.

Simply the Forbes link was enough to confirm this point

Nope. One link is not enough — from the very beginning I asked, that each citation consist of two links: one to the prediction being made, the other — to confirmation/discussion of it coming true. Another rule was, the two links must be at least 5 years apart.

The purpose is easy to understand. A person can privately record 20 predictions of, say, an average temperature somewhere changing from -10 to +9 degrees. Five years later one of them will have made a precise match, and Forbes will write about him. If you didn't know about his 19 other predictions, you'll be impressed... This is why I insist on the prediction to have been published — prominently — ahead of time.

you purposely ignore the arguments

Because I was not asking for arguments — I was asking for citations...

"Can we get it in cornflower blue?"

Don't mock it. Cornflower blue can be valuable.

The problem is, people have been over-trusting technology since technology was invented. Consider the '70s when corporate representatives were so fond on the phrase "But the computer says...". Yes, you could hear the bold italics in their voice, as if it was the infallible final word on everything.

If THE COMPUTER says you shoplifted, rest assured, some dolt in a suit will treat that like God's own word booming from the clouds.

But every person who sets foot in that store probably "kinda" looks like someone who has shoplifted. And since shoplifters look like everybody else, everyone COULD be a shoplifter.

The case against Big Tobacco was based on the fact, that their product was actually addictive. Nicotine is not just psychologically, but chemically addictive for humans.

There is no such case against software. Against marijuana-growers — maybe, but the same actors are surprisingly quiet about that.

Facebook has been pressured earlier into spreading government propaganda and then publicly testified about this pressure. Its current troubles are much more likely to be rooted in that, than in any actual "harm to children".