just play human music at 5% processing and keep the settings on auto, we'll deal with this later.

Are they really looking for intelligence in these LLMs or are they missing something else that slows down their progress? Is it intelligence, that we are trying to get out of LLMs? If so, I think they can be easily at least as 'intelligent' as anyone, they certainly have more information than any one person does. Maybe what they are looking for and not finding just cannot be found that way, that's because it is not intelligence they are looking for but some form of organic animal like behavior? In that case they will be looking for a while, not until we have robots everywhere that are more than a camera on a car, something that can touch, taste, smell, feel pain, hunger, consume to sustain itself, will the new level of 'intelligence' appear.

What happened? Necromancy? I haven't heard of it in like 20 years.

Maybe the real question is why bother having children, to bring them into the world where they are really unwanted by the entire society?

Being "skilled up" mostly just means that you keep your skills matched to the relevant skills for today's job market, not yesterday's job market. In a field that changes fairly quickly, that is a continuous process for anyone who wants to remain employed in the field over a full 45-50 year career.

One problem is that people who are attracted to a field may have unique skills and, more critically, interests that align with the field at the time the enter it. However as the field changes in what it requires, those people may not be nearly as interested in the field and therefore less motivated to continue to "skill up" because it seems like work to do so rather than a pleasurable exercise in its own right.

Because photosynthesis produces oxygen, and increased CO2 would lead to a higher oxygen production rate. It's pretty basic science that one learns in middle school.

I picked 25% arbitrarily, it could be higher or only marginally lower, and presumably it'd take a great deal of time for the entire planet's oxygen levels to stabilize to newer CO2 levels.

In a word: yes. (And no, I don't understand the mechanism here.)

The studies on both have been pretty conclusive. Masks have had zero measurable impact over baseline on viral infection rates in anecdotal studies, have been shown to significantly increase bacterial infections in the wearer, and they contribute to increased blood CO2 levels for the wearer. Rhetoric - yours or mine - aren't really factors here, it's merely what we've been able to prove scientifically.

"What makes you think there will be increased plant growth?"

Because it's literally what's happening throughout the world as we speak. Higher CO2 is leading to a regrowth of greenery, making deserts more habitable throughout North Africa.

That was literally the point I was making.

People breathe, and output CO2. There are more people in China, and thus, more CO2 production in aggregate (when you combine breathing + production).

What're you talking about?

I didn't get anything backwards, you misread and made an incorrect inference.

China has a lot more people. They also have a lower per-capita CO2 emittance but higher overall, because more people.

Because they have more people, they're also outputting (breathing out) more CO2. Thus how you get 4-5x total more. Because people breathe.

They're throwing shit at us because they're bored and their AI is so inbred after several generations of consuming its ancestors' slop that it hallucinates frequently and so the asteroids miss Earth.

You also have to consider that the US has a long way to go before its even remotely competitive with China, if we're talking about total tons of CO2. They produce 2x what we do, and that's not including how much they breathe - which puts it more like 4-5x the total of what the US produces, for both India and China.

That's largely dependent on relative oxygen concentration in the air, which is the biggest reason indoor air quality is poor/low in oxygen - not CO2 directly. CO2 is the second order issue.

These are generally people with poor cardiovascular health in the first place.

With higher oxygen levels (as naturally happens with increased CO2) due to increased plant growth, people will/are able to withstand much more CO2 before its problematic.

Don't be silly. If you wore a mask during covid as all the doctors said you must to flatten the curve, you were breathing 2000-5000ppm CO2 all day long.

Meanwhile, that's about half of the low end of what plants prefer - 800-1200ppm.

Their alarmism about (the 180ppm) of the last Ice Age, meanwhile, was almost low enough to kill all plantlife on the planet (and with it, most animal species that depend on said plants). We were dangerously close to global annihilation.

For context, 1000ppm is going to be a stuffy office space, and 800ppm a well ventilated indoor space.

A well-fitted surgical mask like so many medical professionals insisted was necessary some short years ago? Those have been measured to result in a CO2 of 2,000-5,000 (with peaks up to 8,000ppm when its actually fit properly) for the air being inhaled. (But don't worry, that's still under the 8,000ppm 8-hour OSHA maximum.)

If plants like CO2, they're going to grow more rapidly and prolifically. That means, in turn, they'll be producing a lot more oxygen. Let's assume a moderate increase in O2 to 25% ambient... which is more than safe, and even preferable. The result would be that humans could withstand significantly higher CO2 ppm.

I'm not sure why we've ever started talking about CO2 as a "greenhouse gas" when it's 0.0425% of our atmosphere, and the facts above (about it causing significant greening of the planet). That much is well established, and it's well accepted that greening an area will decrease, not increase, the temperature of the area. We've seen this play out significantly in the last decade or so in eg. North Africa. This more than offsets the "global warming".

More CO2 is not only not bad - its beneficial and preferable.

The big problem with the CO2 hysteria (such as in the OP) is that it's myopic and agenda driven. "You've got to consume less" - which is true, regardless, but bellies the point that such propaganda is directed at Western countries which produce both less CO2 per capita and in total vs countries like India and China, which have effectively zero efforts in place to reduce its production. It's clearly aimed at the Western countries to hamper them economically. Outside factors, like solar output, are never considered in these breathless press releases about global warming. Notice how "global warming" is conveniently replaced with "climate change" in the media during periods of low solar output? We're now nearing the peak of the ~11 year solar cycle with the solar maximum likely to occur this year. Expect seeing more "global climate change" in the news in the coming years...