Grok was constantly say it was doing something that it had ZERO ability to, and I kept calling it out and it kept apologizing and then immediately doing it again.

As a guy who spend 5 figures a year on Ai, the last thing I want is that. I know Claude and ChatGPT also do it, but Grok was doing it CONSTANTLY.

No. They are balanced in equal proportion. The fundamental property in question is that which caused the morons to clump in the Unites States. The rest of the world got a much higher proportion of anti-morons as a result.

You ask: "And how does *also* allowing non fossil-fuel energy, like wind and solar, hurt any of that?"

Answer: intermittency. Adding wind and solar to the generating system just adds cost for no benefit.

If you want detailed case histories of this look at the UK, the usual canary. You will find that the useless intermittent supply from wind and solar comes in, on the bids, far higher than conventional. Regulation is needed to force utilities to buy it. And that is for an intermittent supply. There is no way to deliver dispatchable power from wind and solar at a cost which is competitive with conventional, ie gas or coal.

You doubt it? Go through the UK wind bids and add up the total cost of the UK electricity Net Zero push. Adding wind and solar to a conventional generation system just pushes up costs. Among the costs it adds are constraint payments. There are wind farms in the UK which are making a majority of their income from being paid not to generate, because the wind is supplying when there is no demand.

By the time you factor in the increase in gas consumption consequent on having to rely on open cycle rapid start gas to cover calms and nights its doubtful you even save any emissions either.

Its a great mystery why people who are persuaded of a climate crisis from CO2 emissions have this blind faith in wind and solar generation. Whether or not there is a climate crisis, wind and solar are not a viable generating technology and are not any kind of solution to it.

Paul Homewood has covered the UK wind constracting process in detail if you want that. Most advocates of wind do not. But here he is, as a for example, on constraint payments:
              https://notalotofpeopleknowtha...

and here he is on the recent AR7 auction
              https://notalotofpeopleknowtha...

Lots more on costs, subsidies and constraint if you explore the site. The political consensus in the UK seems to be turning against the so called energy transition. The situation in the Gulf is clarifying minds. The absurdity of the idea that moving to intermittent wind and solar is either possible or is going to increase energy security or reduce energy prices is becoming obvious.

Unfortunately you can. The fact this made it into a courtroom is the most frightening part.

The idea that one can release video coverage of what happens in one's own home and invade someone ELSE's privacy by doing that - it's frightening that survived a motion to dismiss as a matter of law.

Never really understood these suits. They ask for damages, but does this mean they envisage Exxon (just as a for instance) carrying on extracting and selling fossil fuels? Because that is where the money would have to come from to pay the damages if they won.

Or do they want Exxon to close down and stop extracting and selling? At which point the company would be worthless, so it would have little prospect of paying any damages to (for instance) the residents of Colorado (just as a for instance) or anyone else.

And then you have the problems of scale and attribution. Take the problem of scale first. If you look at the percentage of total global emissions that are due to Exxon, they are rather small. Chinese emissions from coal, for instance, will dwarf them. So there is a real problem proving that Exxon has caused significant amounts of the current warming. But it gets worse, the current warming is not itself very large, Globally its around 1C. Very hard to prove that this much warming has caused significant damage, and even harder to prove that anything Exxon has done has caused significant amounts of it.

This would be the first defense. But the second defense would be attribution. Colorado, for instance, is suing because of the damage done to its residents. How do you prove it was Exxon's emissions, as opposed to the Chinese emissions from burning coal? And if the remedy requested is to close down Exxon, how much effect will that have on global emissions, global temps and local weather?

They seem to be suing people for unproven damage which may have been caused (though you'd have to prove this) by a global phenomenon to which Exxon has been a minor contributor. And requesting remedies which will be either ineffective or impossible to obtain.

Its completely different from a case where a company pollutes a bay with mercury, it enters the local food chain and poisons the locals who eat the local fish. And then sue for being poisoned. Or asbestos, where the companies can be sued by people who worked with the stuff and got asbestosis. Or tobacco, where the product has harmed those who used it, and they can sue. Or a state government can sue based on damage to its citizens. The harm done by the habit to the damaged is provable.

Here we have Colorado trying to sue for damage which may or may not have been caused by global emissions, which have only been contributed to minorly by Exxon, and where there is no provable connexion between the damage and the Exxon emissions and where an award of remedy will either be impossible to pay or will have no effect on the problem..

Simply do not understand either how they are goiing to prove what they need, or what remedy they can obtain.

Sue China, maybe. China is mining and burning more coal than the rest of the world put together, and is accounting for more than one third of global emissions. China stops emitting, global emissions really do fall by an amount which will have an effect. Exxon,,,?

Well...

First of all sure, the immigration issues you cite aren't actually what the real problem is, but let's look at it. You have a president who is willing to nationalize the state guard in order to put armed soldiers in the streets who are under his direct control. They are there, ostensibly, to open the way for ICE. ICE, an organization that openly advertises for recruitment in white nationalist magazines and recruits from white nationalist organizations. ICE, whose members openly flash white nationalist and KKK signs in photo ops together. Is that the organization that's no problem? They may want to do some laundry because their uniform shirts are looking a little... er.... brown.

Secondly, ICE isn't actually the real problem. The real problem is that there has already been political violence in the streets of your capitol. It is sparking all over the country. The rhetoric is off the charts, and your president invokes the most bizarre logic in every decision he makes. So when you say...

who's rules are you speaking of? Those are a moving target and change at the mercurial whim of the person who controls all the aforementioned organizations. Your country is on a collision course with violence that will make that Jan 6th look like a christmas party. My own take on the trends there, is that there WILL be more violence in the streets of your capitol before, or as, the 118th congress first sits. If it does. I for one think it will sit, but not before more blood is spilled.

You brushed off the warning contained in the story. The Ig Nobel organizers' decision to relocate wasn't frivolous. These are serious international academics and scientists making a calculated risk assessment. So if you brushed that off as a stunt, I suspect you will brush off my own comment here similarly. I hope rather than believe you will take a long hard look at the way things are going before violence hits your streets again. Also remember you are on the inside, with a breakdown like other people see coming being something that is just not possible. But people on the outside see it coming - sometimes people on the outside can see the trees better than the person inside the forest can.

Well....
Sure, immigration issues and ICE itself are an issue at play here, for sure. A federal police force that the nation's president is willing to invoke federalizing the state guard in order to compel states to allow it in where they aren't wanted is a concern. President-controlled national guardsmen in the streets is a concern. An 'immigration' police force that advertises in white nationalist magazines and recruits from white nationalist groups and who openly flash KKK signs in photo ops is a concern. They may want to look at doing some laundry, because their uniform shirts are looking a little.... er.... brown.

But the real concern is not immigration or VISAs. The real concern is that there already has been political violence in the streets of your capital city, there is political violence sparking all over, and there is a good chance there will be a lot more of it very soon. Mark my words, before the 118th congress convenes, or as it convenes, there will be more political violence in the streets of your capital, and this time it will spread.

More pointedly, if you can't see what's going on in your own back yard, if you can't see where the trends are taking you, and what damage the off-the-charts rhetoric is doing, then perhaps look at the decision to avoid the US made by the Ig-Nobels as a litmus test. Often times those who aren't in the forest and are looking at it from the outside can see the trees better than you can. So take a long, hard, sober look at what others are saying before you write it off as a political stunt.

Take a long hard look.

This will not end well.

Why is this a problem?

I do not want my software censoring anything I make.

Neoliberalism and liberalism are two totally different things.

Ai will just shine the light on the class of workers who have make-work just that exist solely to push them to vote harder.

When we can let markets replace them, itâ(TM)ll be a tragedy for a few generations and then it will be forgotten.

"It abandons its core mandate to protect human health and the environment to boost polluting industries and attempts to rewrite the law in order to do so."

This is complete nonsense. There is no threat to American health from American CO2 emissions. No-one has ever shown that.

Reducing US emissions will have no or minimal effect on the level of global emissions. So even if you think the level of global emissions will produce heat which is a danger to health globally (which is again pretty hard or impossible to prove) you still have no case for the Endangerment Finding.

The EPA is not concerned with the global, but with the American, not with global temps, global emissions, the welfare of the rest of the world. If you could show that US emissions were driving warming and that warming was a threat to health, maybe you'd have a point.

But US emissions are not driving global emissions, so you cannot show that. Its at the level of eat your dinner because of the starving children in Africa. How, asks the kid, will that help them? Don't argue with your mother, is the reply.

I think the idea was the same as the idea of runnng MacOS on generic Intel. People wanted to do that because they liked the OS but did not want to pay over the odds for generic hardware. The Mac people always claimed that the Apple hardware was premium quality, but it never has been, its always just been commodity stuff at an inflated price.

So finally Apple comes up with what seems to be genuinely better hardware - faster, lower power consumption in packages that are at least as good as premium Intel machines. They aren't cheap, but they do seem very nice as hardware.

But, people are now saying, yes to the hardware but no to that awful locked down OS. So they naturally enough try to get Linux working on the hardware.

The difficulty they are running into is the same in both cases. Apple is determined, whenever it gets a market lead in either OS or hardware, to use that to force sell the other. So back in the day we had an OS people really wanted, but which would only run, and later was only permitted to be packaged with, hardware which was either garbage stuff like the Motorola chips or later the PowerPC ones which were too expensive and also real heaters. But the idea was, force them to buy the hardware to get the OS.

Now its force them to use the OS they don't want to be able to use the hardware they want.

The solution is not to deal with these people. Wait a while and the industry will catch up on hardware. Meanwhile just buy the best hardware you can afford and run the OS you want on it. As long as you deal with Apple you will always be in a similar situation, the only thing on their mind is how to lock you in. The specifics will vary, but the song remains the same. Some people are fine with that, some even positively like it, it makes them feel safe and special.

A lot of us don't like it and won't have anything to do with Apple. And then there are the real open source heroes, like the Asahi team, who are ready to throw themselves into a real struggle, Applaud them, support them, and they seem to be winning bit by bit. But its a struggle, its a few guys against one of the largest tech companies in the world. Wish them luck, support them, but its a bit like Wine, its an uphill struggle and probably not ready for production yet, if it ever will be.

I am anti copyright and have been all my life. I have created things of value and always dump them into the public domain.

Copyright infringes our rights to use our brain and voice and hands and body.

Fuck IP.

Federal regulations are stupid level: they are owned by lobbyists and megacorps.

Send this to the states.