Basically it means nothing anyway, but companies love to tout how “green” they are, dont they?

We appear to have a capacity for substantially greater sophsitication in those domains, but none are unique to us except when we artificially define them to be. Remember that words like "language", "logic", "art", etc are cultural inventions with a fuzzy and fluid relationship to whatever real-word "stuff" they refer to, not natural kinds that themselves have sharp and perennial definitions.

Unless you choose to define the word as that which only humans can acheive, a spider's web elegently reflects "mathematics" just as much as some beautiful proof in set theory; a conflicted bird debating itself over which stem to use in its nest reflects artistic attention just as as a painter choosing their next color; a cat chirping or mewing or yowling reflects language just as me writing this comment.

The sophistication doesn't go as far, by our eye at least, in any of these animal examples, and so we don't expect the spider to confirm Fermat's Last Theorem or the bird to feature their nest in a gallery (actually...) or a cat to compose formal poetry, but the essential bits that we extend with our sophistication are all ancient and widespread throughout nature.

It's still astonishing that any life can do so many of the things it but I guess that's apparently what billions of years of "pretraining" on unfathomably efficient machines gets you.

Incidentally, it's wild to see people believe that a stream of fmults pushing through a trillion transistors would get you even close to the sophistication of any of life's intelligence. For current-AI-skeptical materialists, it's usually not a doubt about whether silicon and software might conceivably be intelligent, but it can just seem absurd to believe the grossly crude and narrow innovations of recent years are even close. You need to have a very shallow, narrow, almost willfully blinded, appreciation of the "intelligence" exhibited throughout all biological life to think that you unlocked the silicon version of it all in a pretty-good chatbot running on Azure.

In the latter case, the first humans (H. Habilis) had about 1/2 of H. Sapiens brain to work with, and a much smaller fraction of neocortex.

If that doesn't satisfy you, let's say I was speaking about some sort of human ancestor before that, which would have been about as dumb as chimps, unless you require proof of their dumbness as well.

Please and thank you.

But in reality you can’t protect from all the possible dangers and, worse, fear-mongering usually ends up doing more bad than good, like when it stopped our switch to nuclear power and kept us burning hydrocarbons thus bringing about Climate Change, another civilization-ending danger.

Living your life cowering in fear is something an individual may elect to do, but a society cannot - our survival as a species is at stake and our chances are slim with the defaults not in our favor. The risk that we’ll miss a game-changing discovery because we’re too afraid of the potential side effects is unacceptable. We owe it to the future and our future generations.

Like I know the state of journalism is less than stellar, but patching it after the fact for each reader seems like the wrong direction. The implicit conception of "the news" in this desire reifies it into a weird kind of commodity for your personal entertainment/edification; which is precisely the conception operating today which makes it so bad!

Like, maybe, if you have psychological considerations where certain triggers are very damaging, I can kinda understand this. But if that is really the case, then just why read the news anyway? Of course you gotta read some sometimes, but in general you can read other things. There is a lifetime and a half of fiction and nonfiction to read, no GPU required!

This is what a lot of people seem to believe --- people who've never bothered to look at the actual evidence --- or who refuse to accept it once they see.

A detailed county by county survey of the entire country shows that the most religious and conservative parts of the country have higher divorces rates by far.

Getting married in the Bible Belt and giving money to the church seems to *create* a lot of one parent families.

https://sites.utexas.edu/contemporaryfamilies/2014/01/16/imp...