Significant money and effort? Greenpeace does not have 'significant money' in comparison with the petrochemical companies. And effort? Greenpeace was one of the first groups to raise awareness of the danger of global warming. They have been actively fighting it since long before you heard of the term. They have been promoting sustainable energy all that time. If we had followed their lead, we would most likely be off nuclear and off fossil fuels. The fact that we (the rest of us) have failed to follow their lead is not their fault.
mindlesscrollyparrot
joined 10 months ago
This is just obviously untrue. Not least because we did build lots of nuclear power plants. One significant reason why we didn't build more was their high price compared to ... coal and gas plants. But sure, it's Greenpeace's fault and not Exxon Mobil.
None of what you said makes me think the situation would be worse than having Putin in charge. It's a stretch to say Putin came from the civil sphere, and he assassinates his enemies in foreign countries using nerve agents and throws people out of windows at home.
I wish Altman would read Accelerando.
It wouldn't be so bad if they planned to start following them as well.
Zurück zum nächsten Freitag
But we do know how they operate. I saw a post a while back where somebody asked the LLM how it was calculating (incorrectly) the date of Easter. It answered with the formula for the date of Easter. The only problem is that that was a lie. It doesn't calculate. You or I can perform long multiplication if asked to, but the LLM can't (ironically, since the hardware it runs on is far better at multiplication than we are).
This seems to be a really long way of saying that you agree that current LLMs hallucinate all the time.
I'm not sure that the ability to change in response to new data would necessarily be enough. They cannot form hypotheses and, even if they could, they have no way to test them.
The period when dejanews just started to index newsgroups was a golden age for finding answers on the internet, IMO, and there's a strong similarity to the fediverse. All we need is for it to be searchable... OK, I see your point now.
Because it only contains "credible policies in place for less than 20% of the emissions cuts needed". The other 80% is all wishful thinking.
Yes, but he did have his gun out and the spokesperson effectively said "don't worry, he didn't mean to fire it - he was only planning to point it at people".
It concerns me that the article blames this on El Nino and continued burning of fossil fuels.
I'm sure those are contributing, but what about the wildfires that we saw last year? They are a feedback effect (higher temperatures makes fires more likely; fires release CO2; CO2 increases temperatures). If feedback effects have started, then everybody needs to panic.