Lutger

Last thing I read on it, it was confirmed to originate from a wet market. The Wuhan lab theory has become a conspiracy theory lacking substance.

The main focus of the article is not biofuels, but plant based plastics. We can replace most of the need for fuel with EV (or hydrogen fuels), but plastic is a harder problem. Micro and nanoplastics are also a problem that urgently needs to be addressed.

I don't know if it is clear headed. It disregards scientific consensus on introversion / extraversion being a real thing, and it also speaks against the actual experience of many people. Furthermore, you conflate introverts with hermits.

A lot of introverts actually like contact with other people. They often prefer smaller groups and a certain connection, they are more picky. And need some time alone afterwards.

But that doesn't mean they are hermits.

I used to think I like parties. That I have to like it. That something was wrong with me for not liking it. Now I know it is ok to not have fun at a party, and prefer a walk with a good friend or my wife. I am much happier this way.

As someone who had many years of depression, I know social isolation too. And it is just not the same.

That said, I admit it can at the same thing also be true that people cop out of a healthy way to stretch their boundaries or even expend just a little effort by mistakenly labeling themselves as introvert. Such misuse of the label doesn't mean it doesn't refer to a real thing and a real experience.

Won't a nuclear winter kill 100% of humans? Or runaway climate change (5+ degrees)? Or do you think some people in bunkers will live through these events?

Exactly. A mesh network of all the worlds phones and other battery powered devices with some form of radio. Good luck unplugging that one.

> win a time were we solved all the other problems

You don't mean this literally right? We still have hunger, diseases, slavery, poverty, crime, war, climate change, pollution, microplastics, etc. For me it feels like we are very far away from solving these problems.

Richard Rorty describes liberalism as the idea that cruelty is the worst thing that exists. Cruelty, of course, has just as many forms as suffering.

Universal income protects only basic needs and it does so in part. Even if you have income, you need to have housing, clean water, food that isn't poisened and some form of healthy environment to live a good life: income doesn't guarantee it.

On the other end of the income spectrum is the unlimited amassing of wealth. After some point, wealth turns into power. For example, Musk is able to buy twitter influencing public opinion, and Starlink can make or break the battlefield.

If we are talking only about income, I think we would need both a minimum (universal) income and a maximum (a cap on wealth). If we do not, then we will eventually lose democracy.

It doesn't need to cover the usage, or even be able to fully charge it when sitting idle parked.

There are two ways to make it viable:

- adding a bit more range to soothe the range-anxiety people

- adding enough kWh in its lifetime to offset the cost plus extra

If its not adding an off putting amount to the cost of purchasing the car, it should be commercially viable.

Its not as bad as in the US I think, but yeah, most of the laws are actually (literally) written by corporations. I wouldn't call them puppets, but EU corps have an outsized influence on the outcome of the process.

It is not perfect, but the delta between 'cannot understand what agent wrote' and 'it makes sense to me right now' is already an improvement. That it may not be sufficient, doesn't mean it isn't a necessary condition.

Besides, it has always been like this. I sometimes can't even understand some of the things I wrote myself a couple of months ago, because I forgot the context. Good comments and documentation will help you re-acquire the context you need, not completely eliminate it.

Contrary to what most comments seem to indicate, my takeaway from this is that it doesn't really matter all that much for the agents what language you pick. If humans are still to be involved in the process at some point, then its imperative that the language can be read by them, so the preference or skills of the developer(s) are of primary concern, not the agent.

I think the conclusions are a bit overstated and lopsided. Regardless of the sycophancy (which you can tune), LLMs have infinite patience and attention to details. They also have very little inherent bias - it just mirrors your own mostly. They are, in those aspects, vastly superior to even the best therapists, who can't listen for even a couple of minutes and can't think outside of their limited frames. They are only human.

Try listening to somebody and merely repeating the literal words that they say. I guarantee you, most people can't even reproduce two or tree sentences correctly. And I am not even talking about understanding the words, just the literal reproduction of them, copy-pasta. Humans just can't do it, we are not good at it.

Talking to an AI about your problems is a bit like talking to yourself, but with the added superpower of hours of google searches compressed in seconds. Of course it is dangerous and incomplete, but in a way it also beats talking to humans if you know what you are doing and are looking to and able to solve your problems yourself.

Yes, but that didn't translate to 'lots of free time'. We went on to do other stuff, like fast food, advertisement, entertainment, financial work, etc.

Why? What is he referencing? I can't find anything as controversial as this with an online search.

Robots being able to perform any task a human can do, physically, doesn't seem that far off. They would be powered by AI of course.

The question is: do we still have to work? If not, who will take all the wealth?

We thought the washing machine would have giving us so much free time, because it used to take a full day a week. Instead, we only got more frantic it seems and started putting in more labor. But what will happen when that labor is worthless?

In a dystopian world, the elite may be better off just killing the lower, middle and even the higher classes. Keep just enough people to have an interesting gene pool around. Because even in the space mines there will be no need for human labor anymore.