Can't release the software.

Perhaps you could write an article explaining, in suspiciously great detail, how the software works, in good faith that nobody would attempt to actually recreate it and release it anonymously in defiance of the law...

=Smidge=

ChatGPT making up things and incorrectly following policy would merely be in line with the current editorial pool, who ignores policy when it suits them and fabricates material if an article has any kind of political content.

You may have proven the point by your apparent need to translate the phrase for us...

And I think the real point is that if, if you need to translate the phrase in your head to process it further, well, it's neither precise nor efficient. Just spit it out, eh?

And if you don't know what the 'clinker' is, well, then I have a favorite bit of jargon that isn't all that helpful either. But I use it mostly to get the hearer to ask 'what the is that?', and share a bit of trivia. Never really germane to the conversation, but there I am.

The actual evidence is that most humans are pretty bad at telling apart AI and not AI generated images. See https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-did-you-do-on-the-ai-art-turing. That link also includes the test set of images used so you can run through and see how you do on that set.

Isn't "onboarding" jargon of exactly the sort they mean?

If you're watching what is happening, economically, in Germany, you should recognize two things:

0) The German economy is shrinking, due in part to previous administrations 'green' policies. Not that it matters greatly why the economy is shrinking, and there are other causes...

1) The last two times Germany fell into economic distress, war broke out in Europe. Leading us to...

2) We cannot discount the possibility that hot war in Europe could break out due to economic distress among EU states; consider the Russia-Ukraine war, possibly different causes, but similar goals.

As Germany retracts their welfare state, real violent revolution (and I use that term with some imprecision) could break out as migrant populations in Germany literally fight back.

This is not my view of what can or will happen in America. More likely, in the US the dislocation of entry-level white collar jobs will be minimized or solved by young 'recent' college graduates either redirecting their efforts to taking what work is available, or learning not-white-collar skills, either as needed to survive. Or, perhaps, they will revolt. Imagine an alliance between this disaffected people group being bypassed at their entry to the workforce and the people groups denied any access to work. You should know who they are.

Ugly, violent? I think there are other possibilities, new and unimagined technology work for instance, but that's only a hope. We need to scrape out the H1B holders.

I didn't claim there is a conspiracy. I don't trust many of those claiming a global climate change disaster is coming due to human activity. I distrust much of the temperature data, having studied it and much if what is claimed a reporting is in fact modeling, and the details of adjustments and changes to observational data worry me. And that's an old problem, well discussed.

Really, after decades of false claims of impending doom I don't listen to them. That most of them weren't qualified to make such predictions no longer matters to me, the movement jumped on board, and it's still suspect to me.

Do I oppose common sense changes that would address the movement's issues? No! Cleaner air and water are good, period. Telling me what to eat, where to live? Not so much. But using land for solar power is as senseless as growing good for fuel (ethanol, beyond pollution abatement needs*). Nuclear power is the best solution to electrical generation, bar none. Solar cannot satisfy the demand increase of charging electric vehicles at scale without consuming land unsupportably. Wind power is a worse loser than anything besides dirty coal, and worse things. Hydro should be looked at carefully, it's impact on habitat is worse that solar, and that's saying a lot.

Yes, if solar were deployed more creatively w could have a different discussion. But it's not. Yet.

As I wrote, we disagree. You couch your disagreement as exposing my fallacies. Good for you.

Much of the 'other data' is intended to demonstrate or prove the warming terms. As I understand it, atmospheric CO2 levels are assumed to cause warming, and so temperature measurements that indicate warming terms are coherent to CO2 measurements. And liberating CO2 via ice melt, forestry, and combustion, all these are assumed to increase CO2 levels, more temperature increases, more ice melt, population growth increasing other sources of liberated CO2, the cycle continues.

Yet I still question the temperature reporting. You must be aware of the dissenting data, showing high and low temp reporting to not match the news reporting of 'unprecedented heat waves', which seem to be equally episodic, with trends not matching the rhetoric.

Most of my sources are discredited by the majority scientific community, yet the questions raised aren't answered.

Ultimately, if your addition is that I either reject the confirming data without foundation, or that I ignore it so satisfy my beliefs, we are not going to come to consensus. Having been alerted to this in the 70s, I can recall numerous earnings of impending doom, all now failed to occur. And I pay closer attention to the movement and its language. 'Global Warming' is out. 'Climate Change' is in. Eliminating fossil fuel use isn't as important as general resource consumption.

I see a connection between socialist thought and climate alarmism. That draws my attention and I ponder it.

First, I question the temperature measurements for several reasons. One, measurement stations may be impacted by changes in their local environment. I haven't seen this being addressed. Second, the global temperature 'models' seem to require significant adjustments, which I question.

Bring that of course are root questions: are these changes exclusively or predominantly man-made? If not, we're taking at windmills. If so, second question, can we reverse the trend? And ancillary to that, if there is an underlying warming trend, should we submit to alter it, and can we influence it in a measurable way. But I question the temperature data most.

'real headway on reducing the root issue.'

Since you reference reducing the root issue ( prefer resolving, but hey), I assume you subscribe to the The Adams Law of Slow Moving Disasters... (now most often named slow-onset disasters).

Good for you. I suspect however that this is not helpful to the climate grifters who intend to profit from all this.

You left out the people who reject the theories of climate disaster (ought we term it 'anthropomorphic climate degradation' and agree we just don't like the change much, yet?) for whatever reasons. The impact being the same, the motivation doesn't seem the salient feature.

I personally don't trust the data, because I don't trust the proponents. But I don't need to subscribe to the theory to recognize climate changes. As in, our climate is not static over longer time frames. The most impactful problem is changes that come more quickly than we can (humans) adapt. And of course our reliance on a status quo to pursue our goals with a minimum of difficulty.

Our planet's climate will change. We have dealt with this. We will again. Watch.

Do you want to explain what you understand about the technology that you think is relevant or direct to sources that you think explain the relevant parts that explain why you are confident this is the case or do you want to just take a trust-me-bro approach?

> but my understanding is that no new projects will be approved on "productive farmland".

And that's an accurate but shallow read on it.

The way it's framed makes it sound like we're paving over large open fields once used for crops and installing solar panels and wind turbines. While wind turbines often share land with crops (they take up a negligible amount of land in comparison), we're definitely not doing that with solar.

The practical reality is any land associated with a farm is considered "productive farmland." So basically if you own a farm you are not getting any help installing renewable energy anywhere on your property.
=Smidge=

We'll, yeah. At least half of them had or were.

The other half-ish? Not at all pleased. But collectively they forged a constitution that ultimately was amended and dealt with the issue. A hundred years it took, yes.

If I had a lawn I'd still be mowing it myself. I'm always paying a little more for stuff, sometimes more than a little more. I will pay what it costs. At least here on /. The usual screed is " evil corporation", and it really doesn't matter why, whether it was employing illegals or just not paying enough. Doesn't really matter does it. But yes, undoing illegal immigration and unfortunately expelling that illegal underclass that was being abused and taken advantage of anyway is unfortunate. The real problem is and was that we let this go on for three decades at a minimum. We've let so many people come here and think they can just stay because they're good people. None are good, not one. I include you and me sadly. But I liken this to getting a menu and a restaurant without prices on it. I choose whatever I want, and actually they bring whatever they want. And then they tell me how much it's going to cost again and again and again. The fundamental step of closing the border gives us the opportunity to decide how many people we want to admit, and perhaps it gives us a chance to decide how many who have come over illegally. We would like to allow to stay. That could work, but stop the flow.

I think you and I think a lot alike, so I hope you don't think I'm disagreeing with you on anything important. But this is a tough place to do that, because all you get is crap.