It's more efficient, which means less expensive to operate. That's a big advantage for a lot of applications.

The range will improve as batteries keep getting better. It may never match the range of a helicopter, but a lot of applications don't need that much range.

Don't take the word "taxi" seriously. This isn't a vehicle you're going to commute to work in (unless you're insanely wealthy). It's an alternative to helicopters: a specialized vehicle that's useful for certain purposes, but not a mainstream form of transportation.

You clearly didn't look at the graph. Look at it and it will be obvious what I meant.

If you pick 2008 as your starting point, you see a clear trend. Same if you pick 2009, 2010, 2011... Same if you pick an earlier year, say 2000, or 2001, or 2002. Basically if you pick any year other than 2005-2007 as your starting point, you see a clear trend. Out of all possible years you could pick, there are a whole lot that show a clear trend and just a few that don't. That's what cherry picking means. Out of all possible years they could have chosen, they chose the one that gives the result they wanted, even though almost all other choices give the opposite result.

Their claim is just wrong. Look at the actual data. There were three years of anomalously low sea ice in 2005-2007. Aside from those three years, the trend is completely clear and hasn't changed at all. So of course you pick 2005 as your starting point if you want to claim it's stopped decreasing.

It's the same way denialists claimed for years that global warming had stopped by choosing 1998 as their starting point. It was an exceptionally warm year, so they cherry picked it as the starting point to claim the planet had stopped warming.

Even if it's the best model today, how long do you think it will take before other models catch up? Let's suppose they're one year ahead of the competition. I doubt that's really true, but let's make a generous assumption. For the next year, they could charge more and some people would still use it. Then it will just be a commodity. They'll be back to having to compete on price, or they'd better have already created the successor.

That gives them one year to earn back their investment training it. But they won't, because they're still operating at a loss. They will never earn back the money they invested training GPT-5, just as they never earned back the money they invested training GPT-4 or GPT-3. It's all funded by investors who are willing to take a loss in the hope it will eventually turn into a profitable business. But as long as they continue with their current strategy, I don't see much hope of that happening. Eventually the investors will run out of patience and the business model will fall apart.

See the problem? Running at a loss to win customers isn't a successful strategy when those customers can and do switch at a moment's notice. Eventually the investors will get tired of massive losses and demand OpenAI start producing a profit. What will they do then? Raise their prices and have customers immediately switch to a different company?

There are two types of AI stories that seem to come out almost every day at this point. The first kind is, "CEO says his company's products are amazing. If you don't use them, you'll get left behind." The second kind is, "Researchers find AI doesn't work nearly as well as companies claim." Both stories are repeated on a daily basis. Here are a few examples of the latter type, drawing only from stories posted to Slashdot in the last week.

https://f6ffb3fa-34ce-43c1-939d-77e64deb3c0c.atarimworker.io/story/25/...

https://f6ffb3fa-34ce-43c1-939d-77e64deb3c0c.atarimworker.io/story/25/...

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.slashdot.org%2Fstor...

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fit.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F...

This perhaps tells us something about where we are in the hype cycle.

This is why I suspect humanity is doomed. It's because we suck. When faced with problems of global significance, everyone puts their personal short term benefit above the future of humanity, and we don't do anything.

It's not like this is even a hard problem. We know what we need to do. We already have the technology to do it. A lot of it just means switching back to older technologies that work just fine. The only real obstacle is people who make more money from not solving it. So we don't even do the really easy things, never mind the harder ones. Why can't the bag of tortilla chips I buy at the grocery go back to being made of paper like it used to be instead of plastic? No reason at all, except that the plastic bag costs the manufacturer a fraction of a cent less. Multiply that by thousands of products sold to billions of people and you get massive pollution. We could easily eliminate so much of it at very low cost.

But we won't do it.

Exactly. It's a response to the unfortunate rise of instructional videos. That's an inefficient way of learning about most things. I can read faster than you can talk, and I can quickly scan a page of text to find the information I'm looking for. With a video, I can only turn up the playback speed to waste a little less time. But that's mostly what people want to make these days. In any search for "how to ___", half the hits are probably videos instead of text.

They're continuing to ignore the market segment I care about: economy cars. It's also a hugely popular segment. In the US there is exactly one EV you can buy for under $30,000 USD. In Europe there are lots.

None of the car companies will release inexpensive electric economy cars in the US. They'd rather force EV buyers to get their more expensive models instead. In most of the world, competition from Chinese car companies forces them to offer inexpensive cars. In the US, Chinese cars are effectively banned, so they've all agreed not to release any low cost models there.

That's very odd reasoning. Liberals should like Trump's policies because they lead to results that you think are what they want. Therefore you judge them based on policies they oppose, and that are being implemented by a very conservative president.

Does that make sense to you?

In fact, liberals bitterly oppose those policies. This should suggest to you that you don't actually understand their policies or their reasons for supporting certain policies. When your logic leads to an obviously false conclusion, it's certain there's a flaw in it somewhere.

I'm a picky eater with a big list of foods I don't like, most of them vegetables. I also eat a lot of vegetables. I just choose them based on my tastes. No eggplant, but beans are fine. Broccoli is out but carrots are great. Lettuce is inoffensive to almost everyone. Raw spinach is fine but tastes unpleasant to me when cooked. Tomatoes are the opposite, very sour when raw but sweet when cooked.

None of this is a reason to eat lots of meat.

The original poster was correct: there are thousands of traditional recipes that don't include meat. You don't need to like all of them. Try them out, find the ones you like, and eat those.

Raising lifestock takes up more than a third of all habitable land on earth, far more than all other human uses put together. From https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fourworldindata.org%2Fglo...:

Unlike in science fiction, in the real world it's impossible to transmit information through entanglement. If two particles are entangled and you manipulate one of them, that doesn't let you manipulate the other in any controllable way. It just makes them not be entangled anymore.

Oh, right. So only 17,000 times the world's annual energy consumption. No problem!

Their timeline says acceleration will take one year. During that time, the engines on the ship will be producing 17,000 times as much power as the whole earth. I totally believe they can build it to handle the strain of that. I mean, if they have an efficiency of 99.99%, the 0.01% that gets turned into heat will be more than every piece of equipment on earth combined. It's not like that would instantly vaporize the whole ship or anything.