Statistical contortions might provide copium, but don't prove anything. I gave you a straightforward parameter median household income. Something economists have been using for generations. You had to cherry-pick — and your cherry is rotten, because you complained about the period of COVID lock-downs, much of it presided over by your champion.

And you provided no citations. No wonder, your moderation is so high :)

Also Trump is wrecking the economy and nobody wants to acknowledge that

Because it just is not true. Median household incomes in the US are just steadily rising (inflation-adjusted) since he took office in 2024.

that presented themselves as "male" were paid more per task and perceived as more "human-like" than their "female" counterparts

Those complaining loudest are the ones, who can't define the term "woman".

Say it isn't so....

I'm reading the "I say communists" as snark and I hope I'm interpreting that correctly. However, I do find it rather interesting that while we decry Chinese politics winning out in the AI race, we are still faced with a very real possibility that we would have to shift to substantial universal income for our own society (read, socialism or communism) as there will be little to no paying jobs remaining once AI is in full swing.

I never thought of the AI box experiment as an entirely theoretical thought exercise, but since we seem to have put LLMs on the internet as soon as we were the least bit capable, there never was a meaningful "box" in the first place.

...Modern ejector seats cause spinal injuries from which full recovery is "unusual". Smashing the spines of pilots might not be the most effective way to boost morale.

$22,000 per hour. The F35 will be nearer $42,000 per hour. These are under-estimates, as they do not include price hikes, crashes that close businesses, crashing into businesses, crashing into heavily-populated sports centres, etc.

So why haven't the AI companies been charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?

One model going down is happenstance, two — a coincidence, the third one — it's enemy action.

— James Bond

So Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) are commonly used in image generation to help steer an AI model to create more accurate results. Seems like Open AI needs to create Operational Adversarial Models. But now it almost feels like we're stepping into the concept of the machines in the Matrix where different machines cross check each. Agent Smith?

A related phenomenon is, Holocaust survivors live(d) longer. There is no good explanation and repeating the experiment is, thankfully, quite impossible...

Simply the Forbes link was enough to confirm this point

Nope. One link is not enough — from the very beginning I asked, that each citation consist of two links: one to the prediction being made, the other — to confirmation/discussion of it coming true. Another rule was, the two links must be at least 5 years apart.

The purpose is easy to understand. A person can privately record 20 predictions of, say, an average temperature somewhere changing from -10 to +9 degrees. Five years later one of them will have made a precise match, and Forbes will write about him. If you didn't know about his 19 other predictions, you'll be impressed... This is why I insist on the prediction to have been published — prominently — ahead of time.

you purposely ignore the arguments

Because I was not asking for arguments — I was asking for citations...

The case against Big Tobacco was based on the fact, that their product was actually addictive. Nicotine is not just psychologically, but chemically addictive for humans.

There is no such case against software. Against marijuana-growers — maybe, but the same actors are surprisingly quiet about that.

Facebook has been pressured earlier into spreading government propaganda and then publicly testified about this pressure. Its current troubles are much more likely to be rooted in that, than in any actual "harm to children".

You're not paying me to be your research assistant.

Voila, asking your kind of science-deniers for scientific evidence usually ends this way.

So you have not read those IPCC documents yourself — while smugly accusing me of doing "anything at all to avoid looking at" same. Take your "L" at the exit, by your left, and don't let your tail get caught in the door.