The Reasonable Man might think that an AI company OF ALL COMPANIES would be able to use AI to triage bug tickets and reproduce them, but no! They expect humans to keep wasting their own time reproducing, pinging tickets and correcting Claude when it makes mistakes.

Random example: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/12358

First reply from Anthropic: "Found 3 possible duplicate issues: This issue will be automatically closed as a duplicate in 3 days."

User replies, two of the tickets are irrelevant, one didn't help.

Second reply: "This issue has been inactive for 30 days. If the issue is still occurring, please comment to let us know. Otherwise, this issue will be automatically closed in 30 days for housekeeping purposes."

Every ticket I ever filed was auto-closed for inactivity. Complete waste of time. I won't bother filing bugs again.

Anyone who knows about that event and is still watching the BBC afterwards is saying they don't care about the truth of their own beliefs. Dangerous stuff.

> About 30,200 results

2. The media also amplifies people's interests which is why it focuses on bad news and celebrity gossip. How is this unique to social media? Why is it even bad? I wouldn't want to consume any form of media that deliberately showed me boring and irrelevant things.

Go on X. Claims are being fact checked and annotated in real time by an algorithm that finds cases where ideologically opposed people still agree on the fact check. People can summon a cutting edge LLM to evaluate claims on demand. There is almost no gatekeeping so discussions show every point of view, which is fair and curious.

Compare to, I dunno, the BBC. The video you see might not even be real. If you're watching a conservative politician maybe 50 minutes were spliced out of the middle of a sentence and the splice was hidden. You hear only what they want you to hear and they gatekeep aggressively. Facts are not checked in real time by a distributed vote, LLMs are not on hand to double check their claims.

AI and social media are working well together. The biggest problem is synthetic video. But TV news has that problem too, it turns out. Just because you hear someone say some words doesn't mean that was what they actually said. So they're doing equally badly in that regard.

The essay is written by academics who ignored all the evidence that their precious institutions are none of the things they claim to be. Universities don't care about truth. Look at how much fraud they publish. The head of Harvard was found to have plagiarised, one of her cancer labs had been publishing fraudulent papers for over a decade, the head of Stanford was also publishing fraudulent papers, you can find unlimited examples everywhere.

Universities have made zero progress on addressing this or even acknowledging the scale of it because they are immersed in post-modernist ideology, so their attitude is like, man, what even is truth? Who can really even say what's true? It's not like science is anything specific, riiiiiight, that's why we let our anthropology department claim Aboriginal beliefs about the world are just as valid as white western man's beliefs. Everyone has their own truth so how can fraud be a real thing? Smells like Republicans Pouncing!

But it's not clear how long that can be sustained now. The recent appointment of KBJ takes it in that direction. She has stated in court opinions that are themselves clearly unconstitutional, like:

"Having a president come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the Ph.Ds and replacing them with loyalists and people who don’t know anything is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States… These issues should not be in presidential control."

A SCOTUS judge should not be concerned with the "best interest of the citizens". That's not her job, that's the job of politicians. Making decisions on such a basis renders SCOTUS merely another House, but one that considers itself above the others in the power rankings. And what she's asserting is that the President should have no power over the executive branch, which is what Democrats want but isn't what the constitution says.

Anyway. You say skeptics will vanish when we "really start" to feel the impact of it. When? Pick a date. Man up, commit. Because everyone who picked a date in the past had their beliefs invalidated. The skeptics win, every single time.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100113183137/https://www.indep...

March 2000. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

You ask why. How about, because truth matters. How about, because the mitigations climate Kool-Aid drinkers demand are economy-cripplingly expensive. Those two alone are good enough reasons for anyone.

Remember, we're talking here about a gas that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. Water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas. CO2 wasn't measured directly before about 1960, but if you believe the ice core measurements it was about 0.02% in 1850. It would be a very fragile planet that could be tipped into disaster by a change of 0.02 percentage points in the level of a single gas.

Climatology didn't really exist before WW2. From the end of the war to about 1975 the world was cooling. The then-new field discussed it extensively and projected the trend forward to predict a new ice age. See it by doing a historical Google Scholar search. Watch out that in the beginning they called it "climatic change" not "climate change".

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo...

Here's an example paper from 1973, shown in the first page of results for me but you can pick any, there are thousands and they all say the same thing: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1974...

CLIMATIC CHANGE SINCE 1950

Published in the Annals of the Association of American Geographers

ABSTRACT

The mean temperature for the Northern Hemisphere had a warming trend from 1890 to 1950 and a cooling trend since 1950. The eastern and central United States had colder temperatures in 1961–1970 than in 1931–1960

Claims like that are everywhere in the pre-1975 literature. Climatologists warned the US President to prepare America for a new ice age (https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/20...). Papers and news reports show the graphs of temperature they were using and the cooling trend is very clear. Modern temperature graphs look totally different and don't show what they were talking about. The reason is that starting around 2000 climatologists developed a culture of editing data to make it look like the world was warming. They alter the data by cooling the past and warm the present.

This has been noticed many times over the years, by different people.

Example: In 2021 NOAA announced a new global world temperature record which was lower than a previous world record they had announced. Someone queried this and NOAA told them that the temperature time series is a "reconstructed dataset", meaning every time they add a new month's data they recompute the entire historical record. This is a nonsensical violation of causality but the statement was attributed to their "climate experts". https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/16/will-the-real-hottest...

Example: In the first decade of the century, the practice of changing temperatures was still new and rare, but recorded temperatures had stopped going up. For a few years climatologists did nothing in the hope the unpredicted pause in global warming was temporary but it continued. By 2013 Der Spiegel was reporting on the "crisis" in climatology. "Data shows global temperatures aren't rising the way climate scientists have predicted. Now the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change faces a problem: publicize these findings and encourage skeptics -- or hush up the figures." https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientist... Two years later they chose to edit the databases to delete the pause and asserted it had never happened: https://bibbase.org/network/publication/tollefson-climatecha...

The temperature record has been fake for a long time. No claims about temperature records can be trusted because they might change their mind about how hot it was on a certain day retroactively, years later.

Fortunately there are a few. Climate crisis skeptics are mostly pensioners who take down bogus science for free, as a retirement hobby. It's about as close to the platonic ideal of a neutral third party as you can get. Look into them, you'll see for yourself.