Genady

I am curious, what did somebody find wrong with my post above. It relates directly to the topic of the thread, continues the story, and belongs to the Science News forum, doesn't it?

For example, having free or attached ear lobes is neutral to fitness.

This is not necessary. Most mutations are neutral. They might not cause any change in phenotype at all until some environmental or other genetic changes occur. Or they might cause a change in phenotype which is indifferent for the fitness. These neutral mutations might spread in population by a 'random walk' process. Or, they might get fixed because of population split. There are other possibilities as well.

Sufficient. But not necessary.

Only advantageous mutation, is incorrect, AFAIK: there is no such restriction. Other modes of changes in allele frequencies exist, such as genetic drift and genetic draft.

The ban works: OpenAI geoblocks ChatGPT in Italy | TechCrunch

Our other great strength is ability to distinguish between imagination and reality. It is not a good sign when this ability is compromised.

Data regurgitation? Obviously, none of them create a new content, only repackage the same one. Google AI researcher resigns after learning Bard uses data from ChatGPT: report - MarketWatch *And make mistakes while doing this.

I think it is big enough, but it should and can be used more efficiently.

More people => more ideas, more solutions, more diversity, more expertise, more knowledge, more chances, more creativity.

Perhaps they mean this: They mentioned these:

Let's make the question straight. I guess, you don't worry about the 'intelligent' aspect, but about the outcome. In this case, the question is: "Is there a potential that regardless of all mitigation to ensure a good program and very close and control management of the use. That the program could re-write its original program?" It can be prevented.

My point is that it is not a question of a wrong program but of a wrong use of it.

I'm not a lawyer, how would I know? What do you think? I only had an experience with a patent lawyer and with a divorce lawyer. They were reasonable. The OP didn't mention anything like that. I answered with what I wish would happen, not what would make me happy ever after. Otherwise, I'm quite happy as I am. So, I guess, the wish would be, don't break it.

It's a tool and it is up to people what to do with it. This tool can make bad things easier, faster, cheaper to do. Imagine scientific journal boards flooded with plagiarized and fake but well composed manuscripts. SFn flooded with fake science news, machine generated comments, political propaganda etc. Google search returning false results from non-existing sources... These are just a few innocent examples.

My 5 cents based on experience in underwater photography. We used to put a couple of silica gel packets in the housing to prevent fogging during the dive. After each use, we microwaved them for about 15 seconds and stored in the housing to be used next time. They were successfully reused this way many times.

Very well, it clarifies your response. To clarify the last, I hope, misunderstanding I want to point out that my word "we" referred to "us" in your "let's". IOW, it was a rhetorical "we" rather than some non-existent collective humanity that could be encompassed by the theoretical "we".

I didn't ask, what you can do. I've asked, For the reference, here is where you said it:

I thought that's what the OP meant when he said,

In the light / darkness of the above, what did you mean when you said, "Let's try both and see which works better?" How can we try anything at all?

Breaking news: Trump indicted in Stormy Daniels hush-money case (msn.com)

It appears that your suggestion is to look for a needle in a haystack without knowing anything about the needle or the haystack.

This would be good to achieve regardless of it resulting or not in reducing population and regardless of such reduction solving or not any of the problems such as "using up the resources and killing every other species ... heat[ing] up the atmosphere and threaten[ing] nuclear holocaust." But, to achieve the above, it is not clear, "[g]iven the present state of politics, economics, religiosity and environmental conditions - who [bearing in mind there is no unanimous "we", only individuals and organizations] should be doing what, how where and with what resources", and if we have time to do it and to see the results.

Unlike reducing population, reducing craziness consists of a set of separate goals, which perhaps will require different answers. Answers pertaining to this thread's topic are known. Reducing population, as you know, will not necessarily solve this problem, and is not easier than other answers. It will not necessarily solve other components of the craziness either.

Then the answer is reduction of the craziness.