You can also just hum and increase nitric oxide levels in your sinuses 15x.

I take shits, I don't give them. I ain't ever gonna use spellcheck nor proofread internet comments. Have fun pretending you're Kurtz.

Jkechel you have no idea what you're talking about. If people keep pushing greenhouse gas theory, which is predicted to have a maximum effect if less than 2 degrees by 2100, it's blood that will be on your hands. Regreening, restorative ag practices,etc have way bigger impacts in a shorter time frame, and active destruction of habitat and pollution are killing us way faster than any greenhouse gas model concerns.

If you are really worried about climate change you would focus on the worst issues. You've been brainwashed by with marketing materials. If you have arterial bleeding, you don't ignore it and make an appointment to check out a funny looking mole.

flag me as a troll to your hearts content, but I'm guessing I'm the only one here with papers in peer-reviewed journals.

The only causes of 'Climate change' that are proveably man-made and rectifiable are deforestation and desertification caused by poor ag practices, poor land management, water fuckery. Pollution is destroying our ecosystems directly, not indirectly through greenhouse games.

The concept of Climate change was invented to increase profits, and shift blame away companies and practices that are directly harming the environment.

I work in Climate tech, ecoegineering and coastal protection. I talk to scientists, politicians, activists everyday. Whatever anyone's opinion on 'Climate change', almost everyone agrees that if you were to triage causes and what the most impactful actions you could take would be, almost none of those actions are incentivized because they are not as profitable and imply liability on specific organizations and corporations.

The hardest challenge in this sector isn't "what can we do to fix things", it's "how do we shoehorn carbon credits into a solution we think will actually do some good."

AI won't replace half of white-collar jobs, AI SHOULD replace half of white-collar jobs.

anything can can be automated should be automated. It's not the jobs that need to questioned, it's the concept of 'earning a living' that needs to be questioned in the face of automation and efficiency. If 70% of jobs are considered non-essential wtf are we doing as a society? Inventing busy-work to pay our dues, and keep idle hands from questioning the status quo.

Please keep defending the government getting involved deciding what speech is disinformation, so this administration can also decide what is hate speech and antisemitism, such as criticizing Israel. Your hypocrisy is precisely why you truly don't deserve any sort of constitutional protections, at all.

Ah yes - the hallmark of authoritarianism: The arbiter of truth is for the church... no... GOVERNMENT to decide. The left was supposed to be the progressive bastion of free speech, but lost all credibility. The right never had any except when they realized, for the most part, that censorship is wrong. Both sides - but particularly yours, is worthy of scorn and ridicule.

The tech singularity threat was never real in the sense of the tech itself becoming a superpower.

The threat is the exponential growth and power of a company that has the most resources.

Far before AI will have any real agency of its own, it will be used by a corporation to dominate all industry, all information, etc.

We already have a small handful of groups with majority ownership of almost everything -the investment singularity. They will use their resources to exponentially increase their dominance with AI as their fiduciary duty demands.

Why use chat when there are models specifically trained for translation?

This and the problem in the article are user problems. I'm not saying that the AI space doesn't suck or hasn't gotten worse in many ways, but it's gotten way better in many ways as well. Most of the ways it's gotten worse, besides becoming more restrictive, just require more careful prompting or using models most appropriate for the task at hand.

Kids these days... Back in my day, we'd punch arson locations into into our TomToms and have Homer Simpson's voice give us there.

They just put a cellular chip in it.

The power-editors on Wikipedia are terrible.

Consulting gigs can largely be replaced by AI and that would be an incredible cost savings.

Photo radars are a reactive measure. If the goal is safety, and also eliminating carelessness and inattentiveness which we've ALL done, governors make the best sense as a proactive safety measure to save lives.

As far as cops, you have it backwards: Th static limits on any given road by our infallible authoritative experts following "The Science" in government have decided is SAFE, of all people involved, those in public SAFETY, who ENFORCE these perfect limits, should have these devices before anyone else does because they are sworn to uphold the law. For good reason, police chases are becoming less rare because its much harder to hide. The more we leave it up to machines to set the boundaries than a Barnie Fife with an attitude selectively enforcing the law, I'm actually for speed governors.

Manual driving is going to become very expensive soon because of the liability involved. I'd gladly give up driving if fleets of cars were autonomous. It allows much higher safer top speeds.