I don't understand what all this fuss about AI is
about.

Perhaps people should take the time to learn about it,
its benefits, and its limitations before jumping to
any conclusions.

AI is developed and programmed by humans, and it
operates within the parameters set by its developers
and is regulated by laws. As I understand it, its
supposed to make our lives easier and more efficient
and it doesn't have malicious intent.

Why all this fuss?

ttbn- Yes John Daysh does seem a lot like SteeleRedux- you might be onto something. Kudos.

But the most important thing to remember is- "don't feed the narcissist trolls" let them fall under the bridge admiring their own dark distorted reflections

Foxy,

That's actually a really good point. I hadn't thought of it that way.

--

Canem Malum,

ttbn, wasn't suggesting I was this SteeleRedux. And, after perusing their posts, I can see why. Their style of writing was very different to mine. (Please don't get into criminology, will you?)

Further to their writing style, SteeleRedux didn't seem inclined to feel the need to create a different persona they could hide behind, given that they appear to have been csteele before that. (Hence the Redux, I'm guessing.)

Hm, maybe *I* should become a criminologist?

Perhaps people should take the time to learn about it,
its benefits, and its limitations before jumping to
any conclusions.
Foxy,
Wouldn't it be more beneficial for people to think ? Grammarly is a perfect example of people who opted to stop thinking & it's rather obvious by a lot of the spelling on the Forum.
Typos can happen however, they're not due to not thinking !
AI will prove a success for the manipulators because like all technology throughout history it too will be more misused than used.

Indyvidual,

Had you taken Foxy's advice there, you would have realised that thinking for oneself and using AI as a tool are not mutually exclusive.

Ironically, you've actually helped to make her point by arguing against it.

More gobbledygook I'm afraid John. "Every reason" but none cited. There'll be a good piece up tomorrow showing how renewables destroy productivity. To borrow from another discipline it is "dose responsive". The more you have the worse it gets. There is no real world experience that shows otherwise.

If you want cost effective, low emissions electricity then you go the nuclear and hydropower root, or occasionally geothermal, but there is not a lot of that around. Australia has used up most of its hydropower.

That leaves nuclear. Works for France. And Sweden. Even Ukraine. No reason it won't work in Australia. Ontario is 59% nuclear and lowest power in Canada.