AI is first and foremost about threatening people's jobs.

Not replacing people, it's not actually up to snuff to outright replace many real humans at work, but to say to your employees they'll be out if they don't stay cheap and productive? That's what the bosses love.

It's kind of trite and belittling to say this, but the problem here is that you're an idiot. But belittling you isn't the point, the point is you have a series of extremely limiting though-terminating cliches embedded in your head, where you short circuit any actual analysis with predetermined rage bait"

Ask yourself "What policy have the dems actually enacted that are 'concerned with undocumented immigrants' or 'concerned with [...] transexuals'?" and you'll come up with jack shit. Zero laws passed that do anything to offend your (entirely fictional) "blue collar american".

This is a center-right to right wing party with a center-left voting base in a political reality that desperately needs some actual economic planning to counter the death spiral of the escalating r>G phenomenon. The corruption is too rampant for that on the left, and the right is too goddamn stupid and obsessed with made up enemies to do it, so China wins.

Ultimately, I agree with you.

The dems, crippled by an attachment to donors who hate what democratic voters want are strategically incapable of anything besides bare-minimum maintenance of the empire and its alliances. Their major accomplishments of the last 30 fucking years are all center-right patches on immense status quo problems: NAFTA, welfare reform, obamacare, *vague hand gesture* "infrastructure"

Trump, on the other hand, totally satisfies republican donors with two words "tax cuts", and can execute any pet right wing project of his no matter how catastrophic or cruel.

This dichotomy is why we're 20 years into the Chinese century now.

Please?

Yeah, but if you look into the details of those plants, they're high-intensity-low-particulate plants designed to deprecate older coal plants already in operation. I can't say they're a fundamentally good thing, but the results of China's solar focus are undeniable here.

So wait, somehow China managed to

a. Get electricity cheaper than here
b. Develop a gigantic new industry
and
c. Actually reverse course on carbon intensity while still being far-and-away the world's manufacturer of traditionally dirty products like steel?

Boy am I sure glad we went all in on drill-baby-drill. That sure worked out for us.

The way I've been putting it is AI is going to end up filling the exact same role access databases did 15-20 years ago. A way to create a "good enough solution" for some small function in a business to get started that then rapidly approaches unsustainable as the technical debt starts to pile up and the fundamental limits of the technology start to show themselves. Then suddenly you need to start doing a "Business transition" that takes millions of dollars of developer time to clean up.

Also I'm pretty sure it's illegal to make anything good with javascript.

It doesn't do anything(other than spy on you)

Good news, they just divided the estimated amount of wealth by the estimated number of people in two scenarios.

Unfortunately, my tendency is to view it as bullshit, not because of the climate science, but because of the economic models, where mitigated climate change is depicted as a simple differential equation of reduced exponential growth and unmitigated climate change is rendered as the same thing but with a new factor in the form of supply chain disruption estimation, which is essentially derived from averaging 14 other published models that were designed to measure other economic impacts of climate change, but not exactly the ones this paper is assuming.

Basically, my objection is that supply chain disruptions are not exponential in nature, and there's an adaptive dimension to them such that their effects on the flow of economies is dampened by planning.

No, as far as users are concerned, AIs all run through websites or dumb apps on their phones.

What's unfriendly about it now?

On the other hand, it's important to understand that GDP itself is a stupid measure of anything these days and represents predominantly "paper value" and not real productivity because of the technical details of how it's calculated. With that in mind, it seems quite reasonable to assume something stupid and almost entirely existing only on paper like AI might shift and upset it.

That's not even hyperbole. Gaming makes up like a fifth of their revenue or less these days. NVidia without the bubble is dead.

1k for a professional conference with networking opportunities is very typical.

That's the cost of a 1 day pass at GDC these days, and I've seen similar prices in the professional author space when publishers are attending and soliciting work(I'm not an author). As a programmer, things have historically been a bit cheaper, mostly because there doesn't seem to be One Big Name in the software industry, so they have to compete.