As I said above, depending on the model, you can get far more sophisticated grammar advice than the conventional limited static systems, just like how the LLM-based language translation capabilities are far better than the old tools with hand-written rules. AI doesn't need to make your work inferior, it all depends on if you can use it well. What matters is having access to AIs inside of existing tools, and also being able to work faster at editing those documents. There's no point in building a LibreOffice plugin if the goal isn't to help users EDIT their documents. If you want LLM text you can't edit, chat with an LLM in a web browser.

TBH, I debate discussing it with you since you are very sarcastic. In any case, the new industrial revolution evolves around machines being able to emulate reason and solve human problems at a super-human level (see: language translation, speech to text, coding, etc.) Just to be clear, in the example I'm thinking of, I created the table, but somehow the markdown got corrupted and was turned into a mess. The AI didn't create slop, it removed slop, and cleaned it up perfectly. It's the sort of boring work no one enjoys. An industrial revolution is not where you get money for nothing. Did you remember reading that in the history books for the previous ones? You have the idea that anytime you use AI, it means you are no longer thinking, reading, or learning. It doesn't need to be that way.

AI is a tool with many uses. It's actually creating a new industrial revolution so it's better to have a positive attitude about it, but whatever. One of the first features I really liked is that I can select a mess of text (even with random extra markdown formatting characters), and tell the AI clean it all up and make a pretty table out of it. Sure, I could do that myself, but it's a PITA. The problem of slop will get better, and it's even much better now than a couple of years ago, but the AI doesn't generate a final document. LibreOffice is an editor, you are welcomed to and encouraged to make further changes, or tell the AI your custom preferences so works more towards your liking.

There are other grammar checkers of course. I already had the plumbing to call LLMs, so I only spent a few days on it. What's nice is that, depending on the model, you can get far more sophisticated advice than the conventional static systems. I've investigated doing a non-LLM version, but it's a lot of work for less features. You don't need a high-priced graphics card. I spend $5 a month on OpenRouter for a lot of usage. The key is finding good-enough models. I use https://openrouter.ai/inceptio... because it's smart enough, relatively cheap, and very fast.

There are much bigger examples of election interference, from the media, to Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

It's amazing how many people think nanotubes are impossible yet carry workstations in their pocket. If only they knew all the materials sciences work needed to make that happen.

Actually, from my reading, the theoretical strength of carbon nanotubes is far more than what is needed for an earth-based elevator.

The reason the materials sciences advances are still in the future is because there aren't many people working on it. (You should be amazed by the materials sciences technology that goes into your cellphone.) Kennedy said that we couldn't go to the moon without inventing better alloys. Necessity is the mother of invention. Many things are hard if you don't try.

The good news about the nanotubes is that you don't need them until the launch date, after the climbers and everything else are also made.

That assumes you are capable of writing a book, and you are comfortable lying, or are extremely incompetent.

However, imagine you saw a book about how someone could get a fully-functional RC helicopter for $12. Would that be nonsense?

It is pretty amazing how many advanced and cheap technologies exist today and yet still many technical people insist carbon nanotubes are totally impossible. Meanwhile, they have workstations packed into a tiny device they carry around in their pocket.

Thanks for the steel numbers!

Of course it isn't strong enough, however, it can be helpful to have some comparable numbers when people throw around $1 trillion for costs of the space elevator and call it a "building".

Note your launch cost analysis is not useful: the entire ribbon doesn't need to be put into space. The best and cheapest way to build the elevator is with a seed string.

You'd still need rockets for humans. The space elevator is just for cargo.

NASA could have built an elevator if they had tried, but they are a political organization as much as a scientific one.

It's true that the materials don't exist, but at the same time, necessity is the mother of invention. There isn't a lot of research taking place for something which is only needed for the space elevator. Meanwhile, there's been a ton of materials science advancement since the 1960s that has put a workstation into a cellphone.

I wasn't asking you to write a research paper, I was just saying you provided no data or analysis. There is a big difference between a tunnel and a tether. In fact, they are almost opposites of each other aren't they?