Holy shit.

Like, i can't give you anymore. You just fundamentally don't understand what "maxium" means.

Credits are a negative sum. If a company has creddits to sell, it means they came in under THE MAXIMUM QUOTA.

They are not selling the ability to pollute more, they are selling the balance left of their regulatory limit.

I cannot help you. You are just so fucking dumb.

Intelligence is just predictive ability which is subject to diminishing returns. Even the smartest possible being wouldn't really be much smarter than the average human. AI would be able to develop a million strategies for killing humanity in the blink of an eye but at the end it would have to choose one of those strategies based on an inaccurate estimate about the future.

I think you're right about it possibly being able to build or create some unkown form of intelligence or tech that it could use against us but that's only if we provided it lots of time and access to resources.

We don't have any understanding of consciousness ourselves, how can we anticipate an AI can/will achieve that state?

Ya I know. I'm just saying there is more to it that we should all be aware of.

It doesn’t really make a lot of sense. The amount of lithium batteries ready for recycling vs the demand for lithium is likely low single digit percentages and almost certainly will stay that way for the foreseeable future.

>They have to buy carbon credits,

You don't think they pass that cost onto the consumer?

>and there is a hard cap on the industry overall.

Yes, making a carbon credit a valuable commodity. When one company makes a business decision that happens to align with reduced carbon output they earn a credit which they are allowed to sell. They are selling air pollution indulgences like the catholic church. There are literally companies created to mine carbon credits.

Another company buys the credit so the net pollution savings is zero if a credit didn't have to go through an exchange which can limit the exchange rate. It's still really close to zero because of the added industry of the exchange bureaucracy, if not actually creating more pollution.

In the end they are trading air rights, specifically the right to pollute it. Then if a government buys the credit they tax to pay for it. If a business buys a credit they add it to their overhead costs which 100% gets passed to the customer.

Since the entire carbon credits scheme is neutral at best the result is they are selling air.

It seems like we're 100% back on the same page since you've acknowledged carbon credits must be purchased. I've only explained how business works.

I have not. I am against people who shout a new technology down when we know almost nothing. I, too, am skeptical, but there is skepticism, and then there is just doubt backed by nothing. Skepticism is part of the scientific method. Claiming something won't work because you don't understand it sounds like a personal problem. I am yet to see anyone bring up a valid reason backed by data and knowledge of the technology in question.

I'm mostly talking about the human interactions that a person needs on a regular basis. I was mostly saying that human interactions are something that everyone needs. You're correct that such interactions will likely be their family, especially in a society where nobody needs to work. Though, I suspect that for certain diagnoses (assuming they still exist), it might be best to hear them from a person. And, honestly, people will WANT to do such things.

Physics. Very energy intensive heating water and the compressed CO2 is better at dealing with the demand to get the water hotter.

but there, the danger lies in the human who controls the ai, not in the ai itself. the ai won't just be like "oh, you know what? i'll just not care about my directions and f* those humans up" but rather produce bad outcomes because of bad directions. but i think that ai is currently way too narrow to impose an existential threat and when it's general enough, it'll imo also be general enough to understand our directions correctly.

unless, of course, someone doesn't or wants it to cause damage and suffering, which is the whole point of my post.

Yeah but the range isn't very good on EVs

Hahahahhaha

/s

I don't see this being possible unless the person in office is a complete idiot.

The idea that AI would be very good at convincing people to do stuff is absurd. People are very complex and hard to predict an AI would be no better at that than a human.

Was literally a cryptologic linguist while enlisted and did dodic terp work.

What did you want to tell me?

There are security codes and such to prevent this. Unlikely an AI would be any more successful at this strategy than a human.

AI isn't a god though how does it kill people?

What you mention about Galaxy watch is why people who want stuff to "just work" should not buy 3rd party OEM devices and stick to flagship products by the operating system owners. E.g. use Microsoft Surface products for windows stuff, on Android use Pixel devices.

3rd party OEMs are there to help drive down the cost of devices but the user experience is almost always crappier and more prone to bugs.

[removed]

Bard is dumber than a bag of broken hard drives.

Google has had the wrong CEO for too long. They lost the momentum and won't be able to rebound.

Ph wow, that is both not what you said and even dumber.

Carbon credits are a way to subsidize maximum quotas.

You have it dead ass backwards. They have to buy carbon credits, and there is a hard cap on the industry overall.

You really are not bright, are you.

>We have no logical reason to believe that AI could go rogue

I think what Bing chat did shows that yes, we do have a logical reason to think that. And this is when it is run by companies (Microsoft and OpenAI) that really, really didn't want it doing things like that. Wait till an AI is run by some spammer or scammer the like who just doesn't care.

It could be as simple as someone giving it the goal of "increase my profits", and it finds a way to do it that disregards such things as "don't cause human misery" or the like.

>I wasn't the one who said carbon credits were a tax in air.

I also did not say this. Are you ok?

I'm pretty sure you're now pointing your insults at yourself.

I implied companies are selling air in the form of carbon credits. Wikipedia agrees with me, but I'll concede it's a source that should be edited by you if you don't agree with us. I'm not an expert as you're implying you are. I've deferred to your expertise twice and you had this to say:

>you look liek an absolute moron right now, ya?

People that concede to your expertise are morons? I withdraw my concession at your insistence. Now we're back to square one, companies have started to sell air you breath.

AI already has goals. That's what alignment is. And it gets harder to make sure those goals align with our own, the smarter the AI is.

ChatGPTs primary goal seems to be "provide a helpful answer to the user". The problem is when the primary goal becomes "increase the profits of the parent company." Or even something like "cause more engagement".

Yeah, tell that to translators.

What do you think the brain does?

I guess I'm just trying to say if you are referring to the pressure on the high side of a refrigeration system using the term static pressure is very confusing. The low side pressure of these systems would differ depending on the conditions the system are in. The temperature of the air going over the coil for instance would change the pressure. The static pressure in the ductwork would also be a factor on the operating pressures of the low side.