We found the solutions a long time ago - it’s just that nobody wanted to implement them.

I think it’s quite clear that we did.

The way you’ve worded that suggested to me that there isn’t an actual solution so, for the people who didn’t click through, I’ll point out that the article concludes: “more sustainable alternatives to plastic bottles exist for all three types of beverage”.

That said, in order to compare the environmental impact, there has to be some kind of weighting between the energy cost of manufacture and the direct environmental pollution (discarded plastic choking marine animals; microplastics; etc). I’m not sure it even makes sense to try to combine them. Climate change is an imminent existential threat, whereas microplastics are poisoning us but not obviously killing us.

I also wonder what they assumed for the energy source in the glass manufacture. It is mostly fossil fuels at present, but the industry is moving towards electrification.

The insurance companies saw this coming. That’s why they have the clauses that exclude flood damage.

If AIs are to find the solution for us, we need one really smart one, not many AIs that are similarly smart to existing ones. He is proposing building more data centres, ie. the latter option.

If we can spot these trends while working 9-5, then an idiot can probably spot them if they spend 40 hours a week on it.

If we don’t avoid the climate change catastrophe, then current investments are going to be even less valuable than if we do. That’s no argument for continuing to prop up those industries.

I have a feeling that the fossil-fuel investors, to the extent that they trouble their pretty heads about it at all, think that, so long as they make enough money now, they can just run really good air conditioning and it won’t affect them. Idiots.

Countries that fail to invest in new technologies like solar and batteries will be left behind economically. Their investment in fossil fuels is going to be worth less and less, and they will have nothing to replace it with.

But, we are going to prop up large vested fossil fuel interests as long as possible, of course.

As Van Gogh wrote to Gauguin: I have hung the guest bedroom here in Arles with a series of frames that you simply have to come and see.

Of course, those frames aren’t the ones on display. They’re too valuable.

No, indeed. I myself am one of the many millions of people that visit the National Gallery each year to look at the frames.

The same judge (Southwark) thinks that damage to the eye socket of an off-duty police officer should get a suspended sentence.

But sure, when it’s a picture frame, you have to send a message.

That’s terrible! We should organize a protest.

The 5 bullet points do not sound like slang terms to me.

PieDock

We know perfectly well that the art is behind glass and will not be damaged because they did it before. So it’s complete nonsense to say that it will potentially destroy the art.

Losing 2,000 litres of helium is possibly the worst part of this.

The author trying to make a connection is not clarifying which bias Tlaib meant. It is just as likely to be misrepresenting what Tlaib meant.

And, when you think about it, Tlaib said biases - plural - so this ‘clarification’ - if it was a clarification - is ignoring the other biases.

That is the error that the model made. Your quote talks about the causes of these errors. I asked what caused the model to make this error.

Sure, but which of these factors do you think were relevant to the case in the article? The AI seems to have had a large corpus of documents relating to the reporter. Those articles presumably stated clearly that he was the reporter and not the defendant. We are left with “incorrect assumptions made by the model”. What kind of assumption would that be?

In fact, all of the results are hallucinations. It’s just that some of them happen to be good answers and others are not. Instead of labelling the bad answers as hallucinations, we should be labelling the good ones as confirmation bias.

That isn’t the explanation the article gives. Punch 1 of the 1-2 punch is that heavier rain - also caused by climate change - allows grass to grow higher, and that is why there is more fuel.

I guess it’s quite easy to test though: we had extensive wildfires last year; those areas should be safe from wildfires this year.