Statistical contortions might provide copium, but don't prove anything. I gave you a straightforward parameter median household income. Something economists have been using for generations. You had to cherry-pick — and your cherry is rotten, because you complained about the period of COVID lock-downs, much of it presided over by your champion.

And you provided no citations. No wonder, your moderation is so high :)

Also Trump is wrecking the economy and nobody wants to acknowledge that

Because it just is not true. Median household incomes in the US are just steadily rising (inflation-adjusted) since he took office in 2024.

The trouble is Anthropic *can't* just take a lower IPO price. They don't have the revenue to survive much longer, and they're having a harder and harder time getting more rounds of investment cash just like OpenAI is. The IPO is a last-ditch effort to survive long enough for some sort of fiscal miracle to happen, or to let the current investors cash out (or at minimum let Dario Amodei and the other founders do so) on the backs of greater fools.

that presented themselves as "male" were paid more per task and perceived as more "human-like" than their "female" counterparts

Those complaining loudest are the ones, who can't define the term "woman".

"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent" is an old, old, OLD piece of investment wisdom.

One model going down is happenstance, two — a coincidence, the third one — it's enemy action.

— James Bond

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

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...

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".

You're not paying me to be your research assistant.

Voila, asking your kind of science-deniers for scientific evidence usually ends this way.

So you have not read those IPCC documents yourself — while smugly accusing me of doing "anything at all to avoid looking at" same. Take your "L" at the exit, by your left, and don't let your tail get caught in the door.

The argument for why those outcomes are implausible is that the claims of the hazards of imminent "unaligned" superintelligent AI all trace back to the fearmongering of a portion of the Rationalist community and Eliezer Yudkowsky himself. They are based on nothing more concrete than Rationalist AI-doomer fear that this future catastrophe is plausible and imminent (that is, they *assume* the outcome is likely in the near future and take their wild musings on the possible consequences as proof that we must prevent that outcome at all costs). Seriously, read about Yudkowsky's AI-box "experiment". *All* "AI" (LLMs are not and never will be intelligent) "alignment" (LLMs cannot be either aligned with human goals or unaligned with them) "research" (there is no scientific method here, just wild speculation) is based on equally tenuous "evidence".

I've noticed that climate deniers are highly allergic to reading actual science

But you are not, are you? So it should be quite easy for you to provide the citations of nature and in the shape I've asked for: a prediction, and it materializing. Two separate links at least 5 years apart... With the evidence being, supposedly, so abundant, why is it so hard for you to satisfy my request?

1967, the first greenhouse effect model using detailed CO2 infrared spectra and incorporating convection and radiation

Great, what did it predict, that was not trivial and actually impactful, but precise?

here's an article from Forbes that does the same comparison

You're now offering a different link — instead of answering the follow-up question about the earlier ones — does this mean, you concede, that the links you posted earlier are not satisfying the simple rules I started with, and wish to withdraw them? I don't want to be accused of "moving the goal posts"...

P.S. Calling me "an idiot" or "denier" is not going to work :-)

And I'll even help!

Please, sift through your massive documents yourself to cite a couple of "precise, non-trivial and impactful" predictions. I assume, you've read the documents you're offering as evidence yourself, so it wouldn't be much of a burden for you. Thank you!

They not only improved the model's forecasts; they also discovered why some of the model's predictions had been off

Wow, some had been off? Ok, nice to see an acknowledgement of that.

Now, how about a successful prediction? Something reasonably precise, non-trivial and impactful, please — falsifiable, yet not falsified in due time...

If you choose to play, be sure, each citation includes two links: one to the prediction being made, and another — to it coming true within at least 20% of the predicted value (for the quantifiable ones). Crucially, the two links must be at least 5 years apart...

Are they machines? Are they capable of deliberate movement? Do they have any decision-making of their own?

From TFA:

The externally generated [emphasis mine] magnetic fields made the robots spin and tumble through the liquid and squeeze through tiny water-filled gaps in the soil.

So, why are they referred to as robots? If I mulch my bushes — is each chip a "robot" fighting the weeds around the plant? When a brick wall is sanded, is each grain of sand a "robot"?