Rhaedas

Wasn't that supposed to be that exact call back?

Next level, make the center one USB-C.

An LLM used for language purposes is the best application. It's using that hammer to drive a nail. When they deviate from that role to other things, that's when the effectiveness drops. When Co-pilot was pushed into our enterprise system incorporated into Outlook we played around with seeing what it could do with summarizing emails we would routinely send and get. It made them pretty, I give it that. But it didn't handle the information well and was very inaccurate at time when it was missing data. The whole hallucination thing. So just verify what it produces for you before you hit send.

"We're out of paperclips again. Co-pilot, please order more paperclips and make sure we don't run out of them again."

Co-pilot goes brrrrr...

Just kidding. Co-pilot is terrible.

It was about estimating the effect of continued world population growth on the world's carrying capacity. It's true that it did not have a lot of other variables at play, one important one being climate change. So if anything it was a best case of just a few known parameters, and not all the ones we've affected, many that wouldn't even be known then. The model's projections hold up well enough to have been a wake up call to do something drastically different. And we didn't.

The fact that we now recognize a date each year where Earth has reached its carrying capacity and that date steadily gets earlier should suggest they were right too. Along with plenty of recent studies that say the absolute maximum is probably around 11 billion (so maybe you are a bit correct in saying our tech has given us a bit more room), but the optimum population from these studies is around 2.5 billion.

It does depend on both the minimum standard of living being used as well as how well resources are distributed. If we set almost everyone to the lowest levels now existing, perhaps we could get a few billion more. If it doesn't spike the death rates and reduce birth rates.

Actually scientists in the 1970s were saying we need to do what we can to stabilize AT the 4 billion we were at then. See Limits to Growth and related studies. Cutting back now would help, but far more damage has been caused thanks to everything we've done including but not limited to population pressures than if we had heeded the warnings then and changed our direction. Some feedbacks are probably unstoppable now, no matter what we cut back.

That sounds a lot like typical Windows features over the years. Using WIndows at work today I unpinned Co-pilot and that stupid new Notes app from my taskbar three times. They kept coming back, not right away, but ninja like.

If I wake at 2:34am, I'm late for work.

But I get OP's point, as I've woken before thinking it's almost time to get up, and see 11:00pm. Yay, back to sleep.

Yes, that's very correct too.

Wasn't the point I was trying to get across though.

But I get it, morality and ethics are very broad and gray, and people differ in what they think is okay. Some people would feel uncomfortable and do what they can to avoid it, while others think, eh, no harm, no foul, I'm just looking, right?

I do have to wonder what feelings if any the latter get if they get caught doing it. Again, probably a mix.

If you have consent, sure.

Once we get rid of that pesky AMOC, it should cool back down quickly. Or at least make things different.

A habit of mine, to type something into search suggestions that my brain thinks might not be right. First thing that comes up with "amoc" is "amoc collapse news". Whee.

Could be a type of loss.