You are absolutely right on that, but you have no reason to assume that they overestimate the problem. In fact, recent changes suggest the opposite. The situation is worse than the scientists have predicted.

This is supposed to be a scientifically oriented site, in which case we should be able to understand actual numbers, not just handwaving.

In a limited energy system, such as an Earth at a fixed temperature, there is a maximum potential value for many of the parameters that we see breaking records. Yes, we would see those records being broken repeatedly, though less and less often as the length of the record increased. In any case it would clearly look like an asymptotic approach towards a limit with each new record on average being closer to the previous one.

Instead we are seeing records being broken on accelerating scales. That's something completely different.

It's a shame you are answering as AC instead of simply setting up a new account. It make it less worth replying to since most times ACs never come back.

I assume you mean this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Which only applies to neural networks. However there is evidence, including slime moulds which have no neurons but show intelligence, that intelligence is not just a neural network.

I'd be happy with that, but I think there's a reason that the marketing departments of AI related companies aren't using it.

The important part is the handwaving. In other words, for example

learning or any other feature of intelligence

(my emphasis)

We now have learning clearly separated from the rest of intelligence. Just as we didn't call expert systems "intelligent systems" we should now be calling these "artificial learning" or "learning systems" and not "artificial intelligence" because they are not that.

I don't want the research departments renamed. If they are either searching for how to create artificial intelligence or they are dealing with the outcomes of the research that's fine. What I want is that the products delivered are not allowed to use the branding.

Enjoy your remaining years with people telling you: "I told you so!"

"Literally" has taken up a meaning as a signal of linguistic register. It doesn't mean "figuratively." In this meaning the register is the tone of someone who wants to appear smart, without actually having knowledge. The word is used without regard for the metaphorical character of the phrase, so it's more appropriate to use the word "obvious" as a definition, rather than "figurative." The user is usually unable distinguish between literal and figurative. The use of this register has risen recently as people who are smart appear to have higher status.

Whereas you are able to distinguish whether a statement is literal and figurative. Your use of the word is because you want to fit in, not because you want to appear smart (because you actually are smart). Thus, when you use it, you aren't even achieving the correct register.

Your analysis of Nazis is a polemic rant, filled with motivated reasoning, which is altogether below your capability; inasmuch as you are actually capable of analyzing a situation in a scientific way, searching for facts to disprove your own hypotheses. For example.

Don't be an idiot. Republicans are idiots.

"If the two parties are so diametrically opposed why does US policy stay the same, no matter who is in the Oval Office?" - Caitlin Johnstone

English wiktionary.org entry:

It would see the name is spot on because it's all stuff that's been dug up. You seem to have strongly associated the term with biomineralisation which is what the first definition describes.

If you're going to complain about the name of a category then you should at least present a viable alternative.

Here's my suggestion: use "olim" (Latin for "a long time ago") with the suffix "-ar" meaning "relating to". Don't like "olimar fuels"? That's OK because we'll just keep calling them fossil fuels not matter what.

Musk has a staff in each of his companies that exists to keep him away from decision making because he is a known idiot. He has only ever existed as a hype man.

That said he was able to draw a bunch of engineers to SpaceX because he spent a lot of money building up an image of himself as a genius so I think it's possible that there's a bit of a breakdown and the staff that would normally be protecting SpaceX from his incompetence can't always do that. So it's possible the engineers did something stupid as a result.

Think Elon Musk is some kind of genius and if he told them to use stainless steel they would do everything in their power to try and make it work.

It's called a reality distortion field. Steve Jobs had it and for some reason Elon Musk has it and so does Donald trump. I don't understand it because I am more than a little autistic so the kind of charisma tricks those men use just don't work on me. Not because I'm any better of a person or smarter but because I don't relate to humans the way normal humans relate to each other. So you can't exploit those relationships to create a reality distortion field.

It's not terribly useful but it does mean I can be an outsider looking in and I knew from the beginning when I first saw him in iron Man 2 that Elon Musk was a big fat phony.

Outlandish promises that bring in tons of investment cash. Not just a SpaceX but also to his other business Tesla.

Musk has a pattern of making insane promises the draw it insane amount of attention which generates a lot of hype that he can use to pump his publicly traded companies.

Recently it stopped working because he just kept not delivering on promises, with cybertruck being the final nail in that coffin. That's why he moved into politics so he could secure hundreds of billions of dollars of government contracts that he neither deserves nor earned. Frankly giving him contracts after what he did in Ukraine interfering in the war is a national security risk and he knows it.

He made a show of stepping away from politics but I don't think anyone is so dumb that they believe he's really doing it

The idea behind reducing emissions is that the emissions will eventually be eliminated. To that end, this does nothing of the sort. At best this could provide a false notion of progress toward eliminating emissions. It reminds me of when tobacco companies donated money toward cancer research, it doesn't address the root cause.

That said, I welcome this advancement so long as it doesn't take time, money, or focus away from efforts to eliminate emissions.