Service needs workforce performing the service. Workforce are usually human resources. Thereby, limited again. Or did I get it wrong?

They literally said:

Perpetual growth in a finite system is impossible

I don’t see how your comment applies to that.

Knowlegde growth may be sustainable, but it is also impossible to grow forever. (Supposing knowlegde is finite, which is, as far as I see it, the case as long as we make the definition of knowledge depend on characteristics like repition-free and new. For example, you could learn the number pi to even longer lenghts forever, but doing that is not necessarily something new to know as it’s just a manifestation of a repition which was already discovered.)

I’m intrigued how you would explain that economies could grow independently of resources. From my perspective, it looks a lot like each and every form of economy relies somehow on some form of resource or resources. As resources are finite, economies can’t grow forever.

The only reason to use AI in programming is to simplify C++ error messages.

It’s impossible to trust any sources these days because there are hidden agendas. […] No amount of “scientific literature” can contradict actual, basic, fundamental science about who we are and what we are supposed to eat. Anyone who does has an agenda.

Sounds more like, “I don’t like it, so it must be an agenda”.

If you have issues trusting science we won’t come to an agreement here. Having a biased view and choosing what you want to believe, despite contradicting evidence, is building an illusion and not having an accurate picture of reality.

Note that research on that topic has not just popped up in the last couple of years. Also you may take a look at other cultures for hands-on counterexamples, e.g. some monks who live and have lived their whole lifes without consuming animal products.

The fact remains: we are omnivores

I wonder how you decide what a “fact” is, since you have issues trusting the work of scientists.
Anyway:
The fact also remains that digestion capabilites, i.e. being able to eat both plant and animal matter, don’t necessarily impose dietary recommendations.

What you need to survive is a set of nutrients your body can digest. In which form they come, is less important.

Humans need at least some meat to survive. […] It causes long-term, serious harm to people who do not supplement their diet with at least some meat. […] completely cutting out meat is bad for you.

That is not correct.

Advocating a vegan (or even vegetarian) diet is ignoring science and how our bodies function. […] Pure veganism is a cult that ignores science, diet, and common sense.

To the contrary. It is very much supported by science. Are you interested in the scientific literature? I’ll happily share.

True, increased demand for meat is one of the driving factors of ecological malpractise as it’s found in the meat industry.

Plant based diets and a lifestyle free of animal products provide a more sustainable and ecologically beneficial alternative. As does reducing the overall world population of course.

In that case you could pay tuem for their USB A plug-in service.

Windoof on my computer got an update last week. I wonder when it’s done. /j

(But seriously, it took almost the whole evening.)

That you deliver reasons for why you claim I’m wrong.

It’s freemium, not free. As I said before, OpenAI limits the number of prompts you can make per hour in case you don’t want to pay. Also, using the API or ChatGPT 4 costs money. Users of search engines are usually not asked for money.

Well… as I said. OpenAI asks for money, search engines usually don’t. Ergo, OpenAI is not free. (But freemium.)

Despite claiming that’s not the case, you lack the necessary proof and don’t seem to care about countering my argument with something of substance.

Such a discussion will not be fruitful if you are unwilling to deliver.

an AfD or nazi kid in your home

Mostly the same thing.

Thank you for the reference! Learnt something new. As far as I’ve read, the Overton window is not just that, but describes a general window of acceptable ideas or propositions. Of course, influenced by possible (public) majorities.

The ones where you just claim that despite it being not true or which ones do you mean?

*they’re buying studios who make legendary games and kill them.

They are a parasite to the gaming landscape.

I’ve never been asked to pay for using one of the aforementioned search engines. I have been asked to pay for OpenAI products.

So I don’t see how you come to that conclusion.

It’s “freemium”, not free. There is a difference. You can’t use ChatGPT 4 without paying as well as the API. Also, you are limited in the number of prompts you can make per hour before you are put on pause and asked to pay.

Search engines like Ecosia, DuckDuckGo, etc. don’t ask you for money. Regardless how intensively you use it. (They might come with other drawbacks though like Google with privacy, environment, ethical principles, …)

People care about privacy. But they care more about convenience. If the browser is preinstalled on your system and you are not making a deliberate choice to switch, you’ll keep using it.
Changing a habit is a difficult task. Usually, people don’t like to do it. So they stick with the worse, even though there are such beautiful things like Firefox.

That’s what giants like Apple know. They draw people into their own ecosystem in order to groom them into the perfect customer. They start in schools by giving schools special cheap licenses to use Apple products. An investment into future customers, because as we know, customers will gravitate towards stuff they know.

And I wonder how such things can be legal.

You are literally wrong. Nice article, don’t see how that’s relevant though.

Could it be, that you don’t know what “intelligence” is? And what falls under definitions of the “artificial” part in “artificial intelligence”? Maybe you do know, but have a different stance on this. It would be good to make those definitions clear before arguing about it further.

From my point of view, the aforementioned branches, are all important parts of the field of artificial intelligence.

I totally agree with Linus Torvalds in that AIs are just overhyped autocorrects on steroids

Did he say that? I hope he didn’t mean all kinds of AI. While “overhyped autocorrect on steroids” might be a funny way to describe sequence predictors / generators like transformer models, recurrent neural networks or some reinforcement learning type AIs, it’s not so true for classificators, like the classic feed-forward network (which are part of the building blocks of transformers, btw), or convolutional neural networks, or unsupervised learning methods like clustering algorithms or principal component analysis. Then there are evolutionary algorithms and there are reasoning AIs like bayesan nets and so much much much more different kinds of ML/AI models and algorithms.

It would just show a vast lack of understanding if someone would judge an entire discipline that simply.