The accusation that an article was written by AI negates the science of toxic chemical leeching?

It's a big thing and you can buy LEDs which produce a better colour range, but they're much more expensive and not as energy efficient, because creating bold reds costs hard energy that no diode trick will ever get around that.

I mean, you're right in theory, but in the real world things are very different.

In other examples, almost every single person has had the experience of saying, "turn right", "oh I meant left sorry, I knew it was right too, I don't know why I said left". Even the most sophisticated humans have made this error. A computer would never.

Humans are deeply flawed and after pre-selection require expensive training to perform complex tasks at a never perfect success rate.

Heck, humans are so flawed, they'll put the things in the wrong eye socket even knowing full well exactly where they should go - something a computer literally couldn't do.

Geoengineers have talked seriously about this for a long time, but it's a mostly a political issue, then who actually wants to pay to do the science and pay for the outcomes, when you've got no real idea who will get destroyed in the long run.

Is Europe going to help fund it, with a consequence being they have less rainfall? Nobody really knows, so no one really wants to pay to do it at scale, forever.

There doesn't seem to be a neutral option here, because it's very hard to account for inflation without the holding party paying dividends at the exact rate to offset it.

So you use a voice memo to capture your words and email them, but it seems almost as silly as calling up and chatting to an LLM, which has the added benefit of being able to confirm it has understood your request and maybe even begin actioning it.

However, this is silly talk, the real future is just gonna be your agent who you talk to directly, who then talks to the contractors' agent, who passes the info on to them in the exact format they like.

If you've spent time with people with schizophrenia, for example, they will have ideas come from all sorts of places, and see all sorts of things as a sign/validation.

One moment it's that person who seemed like they might have been a demon sending a coded message, next it's the way the street lamp creates a funny shaped halo in the rain.

People shouldn't be using LLMs for help with certain issues, but let's face it, those that can't tell it's a bad idea are going to be guided through life in a strange way regardless of an LLM.

It sounds almost impossible to achieve some sort of unity across every LLM service whereby they are considered "safe" to be used by the world's mentally unwell.

It might challenge us, and maybe those of us who feel challenged in that way need to rise to it, for there are always harder problems to solve

If this new tool seems to make things so easy it's like "cheating", then make the game harder. Can't cheat reality.

For most people, a better life is a life where their children are healthy, nourished, well-educated and living in peace (technology be damned). More importantly, for most people, a better life for themselves is one of extremely little, basic food, peace, community, movement.

All those children grow up to find what makes them happy is less, not more. We all know it. It's the intangibles, not the material. It's the people, our pets, the sun shining and a bird singing.

The end isn't worth the means, maybe instead of looking for some quant to see it all, we could just see ourselves and move forward slowly with what we know to be good and true, without falling on our face trying to punch a baby.

At the levels we're at now, CO2e imbalances definitely impact every single weather event on the planet to some degree, and you'd have to be delusional not to accept that.

Youtube is one of the platforms where I find real value, usually in making/maintaining/repairing things, being able to skip through videos to find answers without worrying about ads definitely saves me significant time and therefore money.