Sarcasm? We actually weren't allowed to take any kind of calculator into any of our advanced maths exams in University (and I'm talking just 15 years ago, not when they were newfangled things).
You want to limit the use of AI in schools just the way you want to limit calculators: ensure the student can do the math without calculators, even when the computation is hard and then teach them to use the calculator as a tool to help them move faster.
Restricting AI completely or introducing it too early, both would be harmful.
(Theses days) it's hard to know what you mean by this and whether you're being sarcastic.
No you don't give arithmetic students calculators for their exams, and you expect them to know how to do it without one.
Yes you probably give professionals who need to do arithmetic calculators so they can do it faster and with less errors.
Giving calculators to people who don't know how, why and/or when to use them will still get you bad results.
Giving calculators to someone who doesn't have any use for one is at best a waste of money and at worst a huge waste of time if the recipient becomes addicted to calculator games.
A calculator uses some type of finite precision arithmetic internally. If you run afoul of the limits of this arithmetic system, it may very confidently give you a wrong answer!
I don't eat meat for the last 10 years, don't own a car, and take cold showers. Can we talk about energy and resource efficiency of chatGPT now or you gonna gatekeep the conversation till I convince all of humanity to be vegan?
I'm gonna (mathematically speaking rightfully) consider the conversation an absolute waste of time and resources, until a significant portion of humanity does that, yes. Because you falling over dead and consuming 0 resources makes only reduce global resource consumption by 0.00000001%.
i'm vegan for a decade if that matters, i also opted for not having a driver license even lured to recieve a car when i turned 18. i'm also straight and i don't want children. the later (not having children) has a bigger impact than the first 2 together... should we be anti-natalists?
anyway your also missing the copyright violation and the whole other plethora of problems coming from generative AI. like bias and misiformation. water and electricity is just a tiny point of this great pile of shit. also this low % still uses USA coal power most of the times and drains water from nearby houses. i'm not a rat to dry-bath on talc powder because some greed entrepreneur wants their 6 figures in-check
This is such a bad, uninformed and genuinely pitiful take that it's my duty to address it.
I live in Poland. There are currently a huge amount of hydrological problems all across the country and parts of it are desertifying. There are numerous articles and scientific journals about it:
So why is my country becoming a desert? And what if I don't want the scarce amount of water that's remaining in our rivers to be used by a water hungry datacenter? Is that unhinged?
you should educate yourself both at the ecological impact of data centers and the economics of running a water facility. it's just too simplistic to skim down 'water' used into a thing that turns it into rain and then it's captured to be used again. good luck with your next naive comment saying something like: rain is almost distilled water and treatment isn't required, so it can go into data centers directly
don't also forget people living nearby these facilities constantly facing drains due to the HIGH requirement of a server
Same argument people use against cows and almonds. The water is used and recycled. This is the weakest possible environmental argument you can possibly make. I’ll wait for the citizens to riot about their “wasted” water
If you are asking for human factors only then according to your link: "Decreases in the human population (such as from the massacres by Genghis Khan, the Black Death and the epidemics emerging in the Americas upon European contact)."
> Do you really believe all climate change in world history, which was dramatic and highly disruptive, was human caused?
It's nice that you can be so confidently wrong, just like an LLM. In reality, the climate changes we observe since the the 1800s is largely human caused.
'This human role in climate change is considered "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible". Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.'
So stop trying to push misinformation and educate yourself.
Wrong, it's changing much faster due to man-made greenhouse gasses. Make the effort to read through the science and facts I shared.
Here are some additional ones, from scientists (99.99% or 97%, depending on recency of studies, agree that man-made climate change is the leading driver of the global warming we are experiencing today):
"Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.
Life on Earth depends on energy coming from the Sun. About half the light energy reaching Earth's atmosphere passes through the air and clouds to the surface, where it is absorbed and radiated in the form of infrared heat. About 90% of this heat is then absorbed by greenhouse gases and re-radiated, slowing heat loss to space."
Hopefully that clarifies things.
> I wonder how humans caused that to end
It's all explained in the link(s) I shared. Educate yourself.
How do you think that works exactly? That data centers cause more rain than would otherwise fall? How is that not an ecological change? Where does it come from?
