Ha ha, Linux already has..

# top -o gpu
top: unrecognized field name 'gpu'

.. d'oh! Never mind.

And is asking an AI to proofread something that much different than MS Word flagging spelling and grammar errors?

Great question, and I think there isn't any significant difference.

But LLMs use a type of math that apparently has the evil bit set. Meanwhile, up here in VirtueVille, the computer code we write to create things, uses different math that doesn't have the evil bit set. Conclusion: we can look down on those AI companies and their stupid users. ;-)

Now, I wouldn't expect an AI service to be better at copyediting than an average human, but I haven't kept up so I'm ignorant of their performance. (All my "AI" experience is that I used Claude twice to, it turned out, fix some typos in some RoR config initializers.) But whether an AI service is as good at copyediting as a human or not, it's that user's choice and, as long as they sign off on the work and really take responsibility for it (declare the words to be their opinion), then I've got no problem with them doing that, whether it uses LLMs or Markov chains or human slaves or Searle's Chinese Room.

The words will be judged by their quality, not provenance.

That said...

Here's a similar story where I'd probably come to the opposite conclusion(!), despite the clown in it pretty much doing what I preach above, though he was using the AI service to do a lot more than copyedit. Behold this 3M expert witness cross-examination (134 page PDF) in the Watson Grinding case. It's slow going at first, but eventually you'll be laughing and cringing like in a good episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Fuck. I don't know.

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

You sure are obsessed over this guy...you doing okay there pal? Shall we get you some professional help?

Sure thing, Comrade.

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...

Facial recognition is really neat technology, and we are all slightly better off thanks to its development. It's also imperfect, and nearly-guaranteed to be a net negative if you fully trust it, without human verification.

If you want to come out ahead by using cool technology, you're going to have to think about how to use it. There just isn't any shortcut around thinking.

If you have something which is only 99.9% reliable, that can be useful but it's going to be wrong sometimes. How are you preventing that wrongness from breaking your system? Insulting (much less turning-away) regular, recurring, paying customers is usually considered a really bad move, generally resulting in lower profits.

Free money falls out of the sky. Should we take it? Today we'll be interviewing Republicans, and learning that the answer is No because asceticism is a fundamental ideal that we should all strive toward. Burn a sacrifice instead!

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.

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 :-)

As you increase the size of the bulk licenses' box, the amount of expensive cardboard increases as a square, but the number of licenses that fit inside the box increases as a cube. This results in a reduction of the amortized cardboard cost per license.

If a cost reduction isn't happening, then I would suggest people look into the shape of their bulk licenses. It may be that a same-sized box holds fewer licenses than it did ten years ago, due to the addition of "AI features" being tacked onto everything, resulting in irregular, difficult-to-efficiently-pack licenses.

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...

But this is a good thing. Meta patenting this means there's only one company we need to worry about pulling this shit.

Read his comment again. His objection has nothing to do with what's being patented; it's just a super-generic anti-recording complaint. This patent does not prohibit anyone else from pissing him off by recording things.