you could search for the wiki or a forum and get the same information chatgpt is pulling without the impact.

True, depending on the quality of the wiki/forum. I would then also often find myself defaulting back to Google to find the right page on the wiki/forum, just with the name of the forum included to narrow down my search.

That or I'd never find the exact bit of info I need because it's buried in hours worth of reading on the wiki.

Weren't the penguins from a zoo in the US though? It's been a while since I saw the film.

I guess it adds up to 12 searches worth of environmental impact with chatgpt+Google (10 searches worth from chatgpt, 2 from Google)

When I use Google alone it's often the same as that if not more. Sometimes it's less if I already know the subject matter, but in those scenarios I would usually give just Google a go first anyway.

Basically chatgpt often either gives me the answer or a much better starting place for what to Google.

Yeah, there's definitely something wrong with that. It is reality though.

My scenario is that I use chatgpt to get context and terminology in the area I'm researching.

I then know how to do more specific Google searches (only 1/2).

Whilst I agree, it wasn't a smart statement from Tennant. Easy words to bend.

I think his stepdaughter, with her boyfriend, dropped off his son for the son's weekend visit with him (him being the commenter, the father).

It reads like his son was visiting his stepdaughter's boyfriend. Maybe it is that, but it'd be odd.

I'm not sure what point you're making.

The environmental impact is interesting, if an AI search being as environmentally impactful as 10 Google searches is true.

I don't know about you, but it often takes a number of Google searches for me to find the right information, whereas with AI and Google combined I usually get the info I need in 1/2 Google searches.

That means that, based on my personal experience, AI is probably more environmentally efficient at getting me the correct info than google search alone.

Edit: gotta love downvoters that give no discussion. I'm happy to re-evaluate the above but if nobody is rebuking it then all I can assume is that downvoters are 'AI BAD' folks who don't have any intelligent input.

So this boils down to, these products are more expensive now that sanctions are in place, because middlemen are needed to circumvent the sanctions.

That translates to sanctions working exactly as intended right? It doesn't matter if they still get the product as long as it's costing them a lot more than it would before sanctions.

It's annoyingly fairly priced. I'm fairly sure they're doing this at a loss to put competitors in the music streaming services out of business so they can hack up the price.

Standard Google/TV streaming service practice.

Many of the recent protests about climate change have been less direct and more about stirring up controversy to force the public to actually think about their decisions.

My hat off to them as so far this style of protest has been working and has resulted in many of us pushing for better climate control.

You're right this isn't going to stop companies, but even if you disagreed with them it puts climate change in your conscious mind. Even if that simply means you'll try to make slightly more climate friendly decisions moving forwards, that's a win.

Personally I don't know if I agree with the technique, but I do feel like it has been working in terms of making people discuss this topic more.

Standard British sarcastic comment...

It's almost as if right wing people shouting loudly gets more viewers, be it with those that agree with them or not.

///////////SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Probably like most other countries, there's a sensible way to do things if the country is governed well.

Then, there's the ridiculous way that occurs when different sections of a country are pulling in opposite directions, without being well guided by the governing power.

If car companies can make more money short term by not switching to EV, they will. They don't care that consumers and the country would have a cheaper time with EVs. Also there's all the fuel companies that stand to lose a lot of money when we make the switch to EV.

I'm happy to take the time to alter your perspective, if you are open to new information.

You took some time, but spent it explaining at a fairly technical level, rather than a lamens term approach. I doubt you managed to change many people's perspective, but you maybe reinforced some.

Not sure when people started to use 'W'. It appears multiple times in this thread

Edit: then again I'm of a generation where 'y' means why and not yes. Maybe I'm just not hip anymore sadfaceemoticon.jpg

I'd argue that it's naive to think we can ever think non-individually as a species. Maybe I've just become cynical as I've aged and experienced though, not to say you haven't also experienced - more that, if you have, your experiences have clearly been very different to my own.

I live in a climate where running midmorning is great. At 10am it's a lovely 15 or so degrees in the summer, maybe 20 on a hot day. Any higher and screw running that day but it'll be cool again soon. Great for running after I've had time to remember my own name.

Guessing you also know that isn't a harmonica though?

Lol yeah.

Good luck spending time and money investing in something that you know will have zero legal protection as 'yours' after you go to market.

I personally feel that a copyright does give confidence to product developers to actually develop products. If they felt they weren't going to get anything for their work they just wouldn't bother and our tech advancement would stall significantly.