("most of the Florida peninsula will be under water in 50-100 years" is certainly not true, however, Miami would be in a very difficult spot at 2m SLR)
The problem with South Florida isn't that the sea level will rise enough to directly flood everything with seawater but rather with drainage of rainwater. There is already only a small gradient for rainwater to drain off into the ocean. If the ocean level rises even a little then drainage slows and flooding increases. The whole region sits on a karst substrate so dikes aren't effective; they'll need active pumping.
Yes, what's your point? That doesn't refute the prediction that even a slight sea level rise will cause more frequent flooding in South Florida due to slower drainage of rainwater.
My point is that while most of Florida won't be constantly underwater in 2100, significant parts of it will be underwater more often than they are now unless there are major, expensive upgrades to flood control infrastructure. While the original claim might have been overstated there are likely serious problems coming that will hit Florida harder than most other states.
This is a very obviously biased argument that both sides make about themselves.
The AfD literally published a manifesto of new and notably more conservative policy goals in 2017.
They do not claim to have the political stance of Germany 25 years ago, they themselves say that they are something new (For example, point 1 is an adoption of Swiss-style direct democracy, which is a notable shift to the right).
I encourage you to think much more deeply than "I saw this meme and it resonated with me," because the same is true of the American Tight, despite Elon's claim (Regan, for example, was very famously against Tariffing Canada).
>Since when did direct democracy became a right wing concept?
It's intended to make Parliament powerless (when you read the document, I'm sure you saw that part), so, I'd say it became a right wing concept when it was proposed by a far-right political party in 2017 to move Germany to the right.
So next time if a far right political party suggest that everyone should eat vegetables for good health, then eating vegetables becomes a far right concept?
That’s like the dumbest take ever. Then all the veganism movement for the sake of climate must be right wing as well.
How about the grass is green logic? If the right wing parties started saying that grass is green and that’s the nature then anyone saying the same thing is right wing as well? Like how dumb are you? Don’t you have a brain to think than being brainwashed by left ideological nonsense?
Just a reminder that AI models' actions are reflections of the text humans write and the more we fret and make up doomsday scenarios that we then post online, the more likely a model is to do those things.
The Waluigi Effect: After you train an LLM to satisfy a desirable property, then it's easier to elicit the chatbot into satisfying the exact opposite property.
Do you make the claim that AI is something more than a reflection of its training data?
I'm curious what other things you would argue influences an LLM's behavior.
I am also generally one to trust the claims of the people who train the models, though you're welcome to the highly improbable belief that they operate in a fantasy world.
Oh come on. It's also trained on fiction work. Shall we refrain from posting sci-fi stories too, now that we're there, just in case the AI might want to try it out?
>The number of members with GH claims per 10,000 beneficiaries under age 18 rose steadily from 5.1 in 2001 to 14.6 in 2016, without a dramatic change around 2003, the ISS approval date.
Just as a reminder for everyone here, 0.14% of US children (+3x in a decade) are given Human Growth Hormone because they are short. Our government says that being in the bottom 2 percentiles is a medically valid condition to be treated with hormones.
Differentially focusing your emotional response on sex-expression hormone therapy vs. hormone therapy generally is reflective of bias.
>And no, HN is not social media in any normal sense of the word. The pedantry involved in that comparison is extremely tiresome.
The amount of times I've read a very thoughtful article only for the comments to be political drivel (the worst was peak-COVID SF discourse) weakens your argument quite a bit.
It's even more foolish to think outside forces aren't using bots/tech to sway the discourse.
Just because it's not engineered for the mainstream's dopamine addiction doesn't mean it doesn't do the same thing.
And "grow the pie" ignores the reality that the distribution of benefits is often "150% to capital, -50% to labor" because capital isn't held accountable for displacing labor and labor suffers displacement risk without compensation.
This would be fine if the money reliably trickled down, but it doesn't. This would be fine if we used redistributive policy to make it right, but we don't.
What does aramco, Walmart valuation has to do with global labor market? That is much bigger than these companies. Also, companies create their own market but that does not mean average people will be benefited from that. AI companies can just bypass the labor market once its done and can have contract with the extremely rich companies or governments around the world.
You and OP are both unnecessarily diminishing what 'glorified search' is.
If you had told me that in 2015, we would have a tool that can iteratively search the world's best and largest unstructured database and synthesize outputs in language (any natural and structured language), I would have said that is basically AGI.
This whole desire for it to 'reason' (autonomously prime its search with a few thousand token) and 'think' (search for the best information within its parameters and synthesize that with its context) is semantic and will feel irrelevant as the technology progresses and we become more used to what these things are actually doing.
I honestly struggle to imagine what AGI will be if not an ever-improving semi-structured database (parametric or otherwise) that we become increasingly good at searching.
If that’s really the case, then I’d say 2015 you needed to do more reading and thinking about AGI and the nature of intelligence and consciousness. The Chinese Room thought experiment is a good starting point for thinking deeper about what AGI is.
But really, I have trouble grasping how anyone can really think database searching is intelligence. For starters, I’d say the capacity to learn on the fly with relatively poor input data is a necessary condition for intelligence, and you can’t get that with database search.
Even in the most cataclysmic scenarios, scientists project Sea level to rise 2m by 2100, and most of Florida is above that level.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-are-best-and-worst-case...
reply