edit - kind of curious why this was flagged and removed?

>Undoubtedly, there are potential alternative explanations for the differential deterioration in mental health among those in remotable jobs, such as the introduction of generative artificial intelligence (AI), political shifts, or lingering effects of the pandemic. Workers in AI-exposed occupations—which also tend to be more remotable—might plausibly show rising distress owing to job security concerns rather than remote work. To test this, we leveraged an AI occupational exposure index (21, 22). We found that the mental health effects load on remotability rather than AI exposure (table S20). Additionally, the time series changes in mental health coincide with the pandemic and not the rapid diffusion of AI following ChatGPT’s release in late 2022. Furthermore, we might expect the mental health effects of AI to be particularly large among those who recently lost their jobs, but instead we found more muted effects for the unemployed (fig. S5). Together, these findings suggest that remote work is a more plausible explanation for deteriorating mental health than generative AI during our study period.

not sure if that answers your question, but your question also seems kind of bad faith perfect v good rather than merits and rigor.

That said, I would not be surprised to see camcorders, DV or VHS or whatever, rise up as a Polaroid-like alternative to smartphone cameras! Old digital point and shoots are already popular that way.

One that particularly bugs me is Bank of America, which sends all kinds of promotional stuff with a note at the end saying "You're receiving this servicing email as part of your existing relationship with us." Can't block it without blocking actual important banking emails. Experian was doing the same - promoting services under the guise of offering account updates. It does feel desperate, but one has to imagine that this firehose technique works.

Finally I said something before Ted rather than the other way round!

https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/21/against-pseudanthropy/

While I agree with the premise here, I do think that it's easy for an arguer to move the goalposts such that the Caesar-Khan example no longer matters. The characters don't have to be conscious for the thing that created them (as in the case of the user doing it) to be so. So the argument would be that the creator of the characters is itself conscious, but not them. This feels like a kind of inverted no-true-scotsman type thing, but it does allow someone to retreat in some semblance of rationality.

https://www.carryology.com/contributor/michael-knispel/

but who knows

If you're interested, next time you take a car, ask the driver what their end is - you may be surprised how little of the fare they actually take home. That share will only decrease unless they all get on one side of a table.

anyway if anything it would probably be poisoning the well. really though it's just pointing out that cliff isn't a garden variety climate scientist and comes with something like a warning label.