Don't train it on data that encourages suicidal ideation, self harm or violence. There's a lot of data in a LLM, but it's not a black box. And if it is, it shouldn't be talking to the public, much less kids.

With this one tool of talking, many psychological problems can be resolved. Or created.

The difference is an MMO chatroom is a service provided by a company, and a psychological safe space should be a selling point. SMS is communication between one person, one other person, their mobile network providers, and the NSA.

There's lots of reasons people type suicide into google. I did it while formulating this response.

A LLM has way more information than that. Being the confidant of someone with suicidal ideation gives you a lot of data, and you could easily tell as the mind state of the person moves from ideation to having a plan, to being about to carry out that plan. As that progresses, encouraging suicide is not the correct response, internet connection or not.

They are also, increasingly, able to give informative and correct responses. Encouraging suicidal ideation is a more serious flaw than hallucinating case law or chess moves, but it's the same type of flaw: It's a incorrect response.

If your product is killing people, you are responsible. Just like every other product.

There are a set of adequate responses to someone confiding with a bot, or a person, that they're suicidal, that probably should be part of the model.

These things have a lot of training. They don't have to bounce.

Then their life would be in the hands of those people in the chat. In most cases, I'd imagine they'd get the response "KYS, Fag" more often than not. Perhaps there is a case for a psychology expert LLM moderating or attending those spaces too.

Agree. It should only apply to LLMs, and there should be a number of acceptable responses, with alerting the authorities only occurring when the when they're not just discussing ideation, but their plan of doing it.

Great Barrier Reef more volatile with sharp declines in coral cover, 06 August 2025

No, it's not cyclic. It's a symptom of the coral doing badly. It's caused by corals being under stress, and expelling the algae that live in the corals tissue. Currently that stress is usually heat stress from global warming. Rising ocean temperatures caused by climate change is the primary cause of coral bleaching..

Yes. Coral can recover from a single bleaching event. However you are mistaken to conclude that therefore it's cyclic. Bleached coral has expelled its algae that it is symbiotic with. If it extended or repeated periods without the algae does kill coral.

The largest coral reef is the great barrier reef, which started forming a lot less than millions of years ago. Probably less than 10,000.

Not really.

"Recovery from a bleaching event takes 10-15 years, and A temperature increase of just one degree Celsius for only four weeks can trigger bleaching.

It isn't. The Great Barrier has been monitored for bleaching since the early 80s and the first mass bleaching event was 1998. It was perfectly healthy without periodic bleaching.

I get about 55,000 papers when I put the search terms "Coral Bleaching Causes" into google scholar.

So there has been more investigation than an amateur could be expected to read through in less that 30 years. But the TLDR is in: Mostly higher temperatures, but there other causes: UV radiation and disease are also causes of some bleaching events.

When I got the mRNA covid vaccine, and subsequent boosters, they controlled the cells that absorbed the encoded nanoparticles to mostly muscle cells in my left shoulder, by injecting them into the muscle of my left shoulder.

ISG15 deficiency often presents with uncontrolled cell death ... better known as necrosis. The therapy seems to be very self-limiting.

But can you point me to a source discussing uncontrolled cell death as a consequence of using mRNA as a delivery platform? My google-fu is failing me.

I suspect this one would be too detrimental.

Even if someone with ISG15 deficiency would survive the necrosis long enough to hit puberty in a pre-modern medicine environment, then if the severe ulcerations in the neck and armpits don't restrict their reproductive chances, those in the groin probably would..

(Image from This paper.)

The global reduction in shrub and savannah fires, due to the conversion of shrubland and savannah to croplands is real..
But it does not contradict that "Climate Change Is Making Fire Weather Worse for World's Forests".

A decline in the area burned globally by wildfires over the 20th century due to land-use change has almost entirely been offset by the increase caused by global warming, a new study says.

Nah, USA is the world's biggest polluter.

In a world where rising autocrats are using the internet to erode Europe, destabilize the U.S, disturb the peace in the west, spread disease, and support genocide, thank God we’re finally committing resources to stop a few people from watching a movie without the amazon prime subscription that supports the people doing the real damage.

It doesn't matter. Work our the cost of sequestering the carbon from the atmosphere, or adapting to the impact, then spend the money on that. At some point it might be cheaper to make the jet fuel from seawater rather than pay for the adaptation to or sequestration of greenhouse gasses. And that's fine too.

If the cost is set correctly, and the money is spent on the cause of those costs, then it doesn't matter if people change their behaviour or pay for the cleanup. And it also doesn't matter who does which.

Emissions aren't measured by wealth.

No, changing energy source doesn't mean reduced industrial activity. It mean increased industrial activity, because you have to roll out the new infrastructure.

Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent surged to 16 percent of world’s total CO2 emissions in 2019.

That's 16 times the average. Because an average 1% will emit 1% of the total. What does your back of the envelope calculation get?

No, that they currently create more emissions per dollar of GDP than Norway by 15 times.

And no we're destroying a lot of wealth when the economically better course is to reduce emissions.

Yes it does. Private aviation contributes about 0.1% of total emissions. Which is important, but should be targeted by bringing the externalities of damage to the environment into the cost of the fuel, just the same as other fossil fuels. So as to not distort the economic incentives.

In South Sudan, the primary fuels used for cooking are firewood and charcoal.

It's more than immediate. They're already doing it.

My solar panels generate more than enough electricity to run my air conditioning on a hot day. If the cost of fossil fuels were applied to the price, states that use fossil fuels to generate their electricity would see people not buying that electricity for aircon within 6 months. It should have been done in the early 80s.

Then: No. Economic incentives motivate individuals, businesses, or governments that own private jest to make specific economic decisions. Including ones that reduce pollution.

And the increased greenhouse effect still does have a single cause: The increase in greenhouse gasses. Private air travel contributes about 4% of aviation emissions, and aviation contributes about 2.5% of total greenhouse emissions.

We're talking about the fact that the Earth is Trapping Much More Heat Than Climate Models Forecast. This is related to the combustion of fossil fuels.

The top 1% emit about 15 times the global average for a person. If you got rid of them all you'd still be left with 85% of the problem.

To lead to our current predicament, you need more than just them.

It's not even close to directly. North Korea emits over 15 times the CO2 per international dollar (US dollar adjusted for purchasing power parity) GDP that Norway does.

I know what all those words mean, but not in that order. The problems we have now from fossil fuel burning are increasing heat waves, droughts, floods and storms, rising seal levels, ocean acidification, shifting habitats, declining biodiversity, food and water insecurity, economic losses, and displacement and Migration. Those aren't "captured" by anything, and they didn't create wealth. And what you mean by any problem being "captured in wealth" isn't clear, much less intractable problems, with vast impacts like coral bleaching.

No. There are other sources of wealth than fossil fuels.

Bill Gates is rich, but he doesn't give a fuck if we move to nuclear and renewables. Nor Larry Paige, nor Zuckerberg.

Nope. You have to target fossil fuels. A tonne of CO2 does the same damage to the environment if it is emitted by Warren Buffett or by 500 South Sudanese.