Well acschually oxygen is a corrosive chemical and probably damages your lungs (since that’s the tissue that comes in most contact with it). And also the Great Oxydation Event is probably one of the greatest - if not the greatest - mass extinction of all times, so …
I’m not sure about that. It implies that only humans are able to produce high-quality output. But that seems wrong to me.
Especially when it’s about gathering real information. When everything you read is written by an anonymous author, you’d have no chance to know whether it’s true or wrong, except if it’s a paper on theoretical maths of course.
I wonder where people in the future will get their information from. What trustworthy sources of information are there? If the internet is overrun with bots, then you can’t really trust anything you read there, as it could all be propaganda. What else to do, though, to get your news?
ChatGPT is a tool under development and it will definitely improve in the long term. There is no reason to shit on it like that.
Instead, focus on the real problems: AI not being open-source, AI being under the control of a few monopolies, and there being little to none regulations that ensure it develops in a healthy direction.
well there have been mass extinctions before, the most notable maybe oxygenation catastrophe , mainly caused by photosynthetic life.
And it represented a major breakthrough for life on Earth, so i doubt that this one is an irreparable crisis.
midnight on Jan 1, 1970 (which was somewhat arbitrarily chosen).
well not so much, as far as I remember the first end-user computers became available in 1971 or 1972 or something, and the internet also underwent some rapid developments in that time, so the date has a certain reasoning to it.
unfortunately
where do you work?
thanks, very well put. I’m not from India, but this explanation makes sense to me.
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
more active workers than retirees.
Well, no, that’s actually incorrect. You only need enough productive output to sustain a social welfare system; if people’s productivity would increase to 10,000%, then 1% active workforce in the population could sustain up to 70% elderly people (assuming another 29% younger unproductive people).
It’s just that society chooses to skim off that additional wealth to some rich parasitical class.
Fear of decline
Edit: after reading the article, it’s about something else. Indian parlamentary seats depend on share of population, not on economic strengths, so some states worry to lose out.
Edit again: Well, no, my first instinct was right. The article is full of stupid people spitting hate at women for choosing to have fewer children. The article also seems to mostly think of offspring as future workforce, in other words slaves to the economy. The human population has been less than 1/1000 of what it currently is just a few thousand years ago (as can be seen in this diagram) and humanity prospered. I don’t see the problem.
yeah, you got it!
What’s happening in Gaza right now is a shame and a disgrace of humanity, and will haunt us!
Have you considered supercapacitors could be used for that?
Or through making fertile material, like uranium 238, fissile by going through the decay chain until it becomes something more spicy, like pu 239 or whatever.
Yeah that’s what i meant.
Greed is a pattern which is adopted to our current competitive environment, where everything is directed at progress and hard work. Really, humans often work 40 hours a week or more, which is significantly more time than wild animals spend to gather food. (I don’t have a source for this unfortunately, but if i remember correctly it’s maybe 2-3 hours a day.)
I think of it in another way: What these rats display is the natural behavior.
These rats live two years, so they don’t have time to learn otherwise. Human greed is a learned behavior, and it takes a lot of time to learn that.
heathens!
accurate