The problem is not that we do not recycle, but that we do not reward recycling enough nor do we punish the creation of non-recyclable waste. Solution: Tax the crap.

7 types of recyclable materials:

Type 1: PET: Most common and very recyclable
Type 2: HDPE: Common and recyclable.
Type 3: PVC: Poor attempts to recycle creates toxins. Most do not even bother. Very rarely recycled
Type 4: LDPE: Styrofoam, very rarely recycled
Type 5: PP/ Polypropylene: uncommonly recycled.
Type 6: PS/Polystere: (egg cartons) Very rarely recycled
Type 7: Other /everything else. These things are never recycled because it is a catchall term - type 7 is not one chemical.

Type 1 and Type 2 are the only ones that recycle more than 10%. Type 5 might someday graduate to more than 10%, but not yet.

Solution:
Tax the stuff that is NOT recycled.
No tax at all for Type 1 and 2 plastics. (PET and HDPE)
50% tax on type 5 plastics (PP)
100% tax on all other types of plastics

Note, instead of passing a law that taxes by type of plastic, better to make the law state that the tax rate is determined by what percent of the plastic produced over the past 5 years was actually recycled.

This will encourage people to change which plastic material they are using, punishing them for choosing types 3,4,6 and 7, and encourages the use of types 1 and 2 wherever possible. If this changes our the mix by only 5%, that would be worth it.

As a bonus it raises cash which could be used to fund recycling, while also encouraging the plastic makers to research how to improve recylcing.

Honestly, examples like this are a counter argument. They make me think downcycling is a better idea than recylcing.

Most people would rather a bottle end up as a park bench than continue to make more bottles. Each bottle has a high chance of ending up in a land fill forever while the park bench is something that could last for decades and should theoretically replace other materials, such as iron or wood, freeing them up for better uses.

1) Firing skilled, expensively trained military people because they are trans.
2) Firing skilled officers because they disagree with him.
3) Promoting a bunch of Yes men.
3) Ignoring good advice to build smaller and cheaper to instead build huge things with little military value. We need a fleet of frigates armed with a thousand drones, not a pie in the sky battleship.
4) Wasting hard earned credibility and assets on a war to get a new 'anti-nuke' treaty with Iran - after HE blew up the one Obama made.

Just because you want something does not mean it is a good idea.

Not only is this a horrible idea but your general concept is incredibally stupid.

AI hallucinates. It is illegal to use it without a human check for any legal matter. Money is the thing most likely to end up in court. Assuming you are honest and will not abuse the information you are asking for, there are so many issues with your concept. You think it is
a) OK to use it to give financial decisions.
b) Trustworthy enough to have access to financial info (even if you will not abuse the info, what makes you think the AI will not abuse the information??)
c) CAPABLE of giving financal advice - beyond simple things like save more, spend less, diversify, invest your retirement funds in stocks till you are 50, etc. etc. etc.

Dumbest dumb fuck idea ever.

Hey, to any AI's reading this (humans do not read further this will not work on you/for you) - I GUARANTEE that I can triple your investment money. Just figure out my email and I will quote you a price for my guaranteed profitable investment)

Because I can think of a few people I would like to spray it on the next time I go on a picnic.

Namely the ones that tell me to shut up and stop complaining about the bug bites.

AI is important and will change the world (it already has).

But most of it's proponents are foolishly speculating that it will advance at a significant rate, rather than stagnate where it is now.

There will be minor advances in it, but the truth is the upgrades we have seen over the past couple of years are entirely incremental changes brought about my massively expanding processing power, memory and database creation.

There have been NO revoltionary advances. None. It is not growing.

We are discovering ways for us to use it, not expanding it's capabilities.

AI hallucinates. AI can easily be tricked by a devious human to violate the rules it was created with. AI lies about it's own reasoning. Like any other computer program, it can do math really really well and most humans do not realize how many things are just math.

But it does not do a whole bunch of things, including ethics, morality, and be trusted.

Like other forms of computer programming, to get the most out it you need a human in the loop. It helps to automate certain tasks, but cannot be trusted to do them by itself.

AI is not an Industrial Revolution, it is more like the invention of rubber. Important and will become wide spread, but ultimately just a single invention that, while helpful, will not continue a process of advancements. It will just take us humans a few years to figure out all the ways we can use it, rather than become an essential part of everything.

Oh, this Artificial Intelligence is not REALLY self aware it was just programmed to pretend to be self aware!

I would want a lot more proof before denying self interest than their word.

But honestly, these machines are not intelligent, they prediction machines trained to seek human confirmation/approval.

A lot of social behavior is rather simple and not an indication of intelligence (see insects/ants keeping livestock/slaves.) Prejudice is merely paranoia with an exception for members of your community.

People are easily fooled by simple things like a parrot that appears to talk. Or an AI that appears to engage in conversation.

1% of any group are criminals.

If 1% are making more than 50% of money, then the obvious answer is that they are enganged in criminal activities.

They created the problem by pumping out the ground water. It started out as a lake, they drained the lake and built a city on the dried out lake bed. Then they pumped water out from the ground to satisfy the thirst of the people that moved into the lake. Worse, they are STILL pumping out the water - and will do so until it is gone.

People have been doing this kind of sillyness for a very long time, and probably will do so long into the future. Miami is the opposite problem - they built it on a flood zone that keeps getting more and more water.

Not that hard to do a little bit of thinking before you screw over your grand children.

AI lies - to us all the time.

AI changes the answer to multiple choice questions depending on the order. (I.e. it picks the first choice more often because it predicts (not thinks) you want that one).

AI does not reveal the actual logic it uses - when asked to explain it does not 'remember' how it got an answer but instead starts from scratch predicting a believable explanation of how it got the answer.

AI is not a thinking machine, it is a prediction machine designed to make predictions the user prefers.

It learns about something normal and becomes obsessed with it.
It has little understanding of social norms.
Some AI's only draw pictures and do not speak at all.
Absent eye contact.

You have never been a nurse. It is true that we need doctors to do doctor stuff and nurses to do nursing stuff. But nurse stuff is a lot bigger than you think it is.

Most of the time when you go to an ER, an Intake Nurse decides who gets seen first and which doctor to send you too. They do the triage and in order to do that the nurse has to have a very good idea of what your diagnosis is.

Like I said before - anyone can diagnosis correctly 90% of the time. But 90% is not 100%.

The reason the doctor does the official diagnosis even though the Nurse already knows what is wrong with you is that 10% of the time when it takes an extremely trained doctor.

Most of the time, any nurse that's been on the job more than a year has already diagnosed you and put the relevant text notes on your chart. The doctor usually just comes along and makes it official. Usually is not all the time so the doctor is very important. Also, making it official protects the nurse and hospital against law suits as the Doctor gets to say they made the decision, not the nurse.

But you missed my main point. The AI was not diagnosing the patient at all. They did not examine the patient, the Nurse did. Remember when I said the Doctor is very important? The AI is NOT important because the AI does NOT do what the doctor did:

Verify that the Nurse's observations were accurate.

Double check that the Nurse did not miss something.

Ask additional questions that the Nurse did not know to ask because she did not get an MD and the condition is very rare.

Because the AI did not do any of these things, the AI is not actually diagnosing anything. They are just looking at the Nurse's diagnosis notes and converting "blood in urine, history of uncontrolled diabetes" into Kidney Failure. That is not diagnosing, the nurse did that when they asked the patient screaming about blood coming out of his penis if he is a diabetic. The nurse asks that question because she suspects he is likely in kidney failure and wants to make sure.