>> Yields are strongly overall trending up.
> Nope they are not. How the fark would that work when it is to hot and to dry to plant what you planted two years ago.

The key word is overall. Yields are strongly up in absolute terms globally overall. The full context matters.

Your methodology is the equivalent of using Barre’s Somalia to represent modern U.S. agricultural trends.

> shouldn't stop us from being critical of where capitalism has gotten us

No thanks. I far prefer it along with the entire enlightenment package. You're welcome to come on over, the water’s warm here:

- blind justice, free speech, sanctity of individual life, and property rights
- widespread prosperity down to the lowest quintiles
- plummeting world poverty and famine
- elimination of slavery worldwide
- indoor plumbing, air conditioning, and electricity
- empirical method and falsifiability instead of “narrative is truth”
- welfare based on actual individual need instead of group identity

The “critical theory” socialist anti-capitalist alternative package has a rather egregious track record in comparison - especially when applied at scale.

> The 'deniers' don't (generally) deny the climate is changing
Correct.

> they just deny it's caused by any sort of human involvement
Wrong. That’s fringe. For the common view, see “denier” Bjorn Lomborg, and, most recently, Bill Gates, who now largely aligns with Bjorn.

> Once the 'breadbaskets' of the world are un-farmable
Yields are strongly overall trending up. The most scientifically supported theory is that “climate change” is slightly slowing the trend as it continues strongly up in absolute terms. Famine has plummeted over the last decades - it’s confined to war torn lawless areas.

> Common logic would therefore suggest to try to minimise the future problem as much as possible
The ‘deniers’ advocate solutions that make a feasible and notable difference, don’t impoverish the third world, aren’t simply feckless Marxist Trojaneering, and don’t give the largest contributors a free pass. Again, see Bjorn Lomborg.

Clearly you didn't even look at the linked article. Your arguments would be more persuasive if you didn't make up supporting assertions, like a non-existent "reduction in crime." There was *not* a reduction in crime, there was an increase in crime. And guess what, Minneapolis has rebuilt its police force since then, because they realized that they actually needed those officers to keep the peace.

Yes, I agree with your explanation of why human agents have become so useless. It's not because they're human, but because their employers are cheap.

With that as a baseline (and the baseline isn't going to change any time soon), I would argue that Google's AI answer bot is better than reading through a bunch of documents.

This reporting makes a very wrong assumption: that the Minneapolis police department is the only law enforcement agency in the city. It is not.

What actually happened was, when the Minneapolis police force was cut in half, the county sheriff's department was forced to step in and make up for the loss of city officers. When the crime statistics for the city and county are combined, crime rates were up, not down.

This is exactly the kind of sloppy research I would expect from the "defund the police" crowd.

https://www.americanexperiment....

All right, show me a place where the police have been defunded, or eliminated, and the communities they served are better off. Surely in this big world, there is one place like that!

What made it an argument, was "...that's how you know...". No, it isn't "how you know" because the second statement is false. At least, in the West, the police largely *do* work for the people. The places (in the West) where police are most welcome, are also the places where crime is the lowest. And conversely, the places where police are least welcome, are the places with the highest crime rates. Apply these principles to any large city, any state or province, any nation. What you see is that police do perform their responsibilities effectively, when allowed to do so.

What kind of criminals trust police? Probably none of them. And police don't try to earn their trust. Police will often use lying as part of their interrogation tactics.

If you're law-abiding, they're much less prone to lie. Probably about the same level of lying as the people they are protecting.

I'll bet you sometimes tell lies too, so stop looking down your long, pointy nose at others who do so.

Not all LLM "support" bots are created equal. As with anything, it depends very much how much money and effort was put into the development of the system. I'm betting the LLM "support" bot you were trying to use, was thrown together cheaply.

Somebody's got to put the last screw in the box, after all! But hey, it happens in the good-old USA!

Your first sentence is true. But your second sentence isn't a logical conclusion drawn from the first.

Just because they lie, doesn't mean they "don't work for us."

Try it. It actually works quite well. Much better than the old documentation merry-go-round.

Have you actually talked to human agents lately? They know how to read scripts and give you the runaround, not answers. An actual solution from a human agent? Really? Your universe does seem to be an alternate one.

I don't know. Do you actually *like* the endless loops of long, wordy documentation pages that you have to dig through to finally find the answer you want? I certainly don't! Being able to ask an AI agent for the precise answer I want, is a game changer for me.