Watch for the AI bubble crash in 2026.

No, you're showing your overactive imagination. That they were goners is the most likely thing.

Don't know what you're talking about, me and my coworkers had the exact same work before, during and after covid and we did it. We worked on systems that weren't in the company's buildings anyway. No advantage to being present in same cube farm or using online chat & meetings. Sure once ever few months we show up in the colo and work on the gear, that also kept on going.

In short, no way to just draw pay and not do the work.

No arrogance, those of us that can do stuff can still get the remote days

Or is it "Remember the idiots who confused NCAR with NOAA and thought NOAA modeling and forecasting tools would disappear with NCAR."

Like the idiots who think the Department of Education actually educated kids, and don't seem to realize education had higher quality before Carter created that agenda driven propaganda organ in the 1970s.

The fact that you believe they HOPE to accomplish anything tells me all we need to know, you are not interested in a rational discussion of reality but only your romantic notions.

NOAA is not part of NCAR, they do forecasts of weather including hurricanes without it.

When did your ancestors come to the US? Did they have to go through "quantified and validated immigration control"? Almost certainly not. The whole conservative ethos of "I've got mine, now go fuck everyone else" is stupidly short sighted. Liberal immigration is what made the US the leader of the world, as our politics get more conservative and our immigration policies get more restrictive we fall further and further behind. That's pretty blatantly the goal of your leadership.

I came across some Emacs elisp code I'd written about 25 years ago, and it looked pretty useful. Emacs didn't like it. I researched the functions and variables and they apparently had been rejiggered about 5 years later. I said to myself, Self, sez I, this could be an interesting AI test. I could probably make this do what I want in a few minutes now if I did it from scratch, but that wouldn't help me understand why it was written that way 25 years ago.

So I asked Grok. I was pleasantly surprised to find it understood 25 year old elisp code just fine, explained when and how they had been rejiggered, and rewrite it for the current standards. That was more than I had expected and well worth the time invested.

One other time Grok surprised me was asking how much of FDR's New Deal legislation would have passed if it had required 2/3 passage instead of just 1/2. Not only did it name the legislation which would not have passed, it also named all the legislation which had passed by voice vote and there was no way to know if 2/3 had voted for it. The couple of bills I checked did match and were not hallucinations. The voice vote business was a nice surprise.

I program now for fun, not professionally. The idea of "offshoring" the fun to AI doesn't interest me. But trying to find 25-year-old documentation and when it changed doesn't sound like fun, and I'm glad to know I can offshore at least some of the dreary parts.

As neocon 'thought leader' Grover Norquist told an assembly of conservative congresscritters in the '90s, "If you want to convince voters that government is broken then you'll have to break it first." I don't think that even he imagined that in less than two decades the Democratic Party 'leadership' would be quietly acquiescing in the effort.

are you confused? Those predictions aren't made by NCAR. NOOA is not part of it.

There is zero benefit to the people you mention; learn how things work before making up romantic notions of what NCAR does.

You are hilarious. What have USA policy makers actually done?

You the one with irrelevant romantic notions.

you're funny, what have "policy makers" in USA really done? You don't think other countries have them?

So the new AI is going to be so 'opt-in' that it needs a killswitch you can use to get rid of it?

I realize that marketing and PR flacks are subhuman enemies of communication; but that's not even pretending to be what 'opt-in' means.

The characterization of "risk of artificial intelligence overpowering humanity" as the substance of an 'AI debate' seems itself like a strategy in trying to forestall it.

Sure, there's some fun sci-fi there; but most of what actual people are actually concerned about is what specific parts of humanity are using 'AI' to do, or justifying doing in the name of 'AI'; not fretting about how skynet might kill us all. And it's exceptionally handy to pretend that that is what people are fretting about; both because it's a distant and vague enough problem that you can justify punting most action without even lying; and because it's not even false that (perhaps outside of a handful who have outright cracked and started thinking about it in religious terms) even the most psychopathic techbros are also against skynet exterminating everyone; both because that would include them; and because Judgement Day would not be a good time for social media engagement metrics.

you're making lot of assumptions; maybe dead callers were doomed anyway and beyond saving.

they can sue but what if it was likely they'd die anyway? making a call doesn't guarantee you're salvagaeble.