What is A.I. for?

[carterfelder]

2 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Literal family sizes, adult children, are half, not just fertility rates, but how big living families are.

Grok:

My dear friend, literal family sizes (number of surviving adult children per woman) have indeed decreased, but this is the expected outcome of lower child mortality, not evidence against it.

Step-by-step:

Pre-modern/high-mortality societies had high fertility but many children died young. Net surviving adult children per woman was typically 2–4 (replacement level).

Technology reduced child mortality. Families then chose fewer births because survival was no longer a gamble. Net surviving adult children per woman fell to ~1–2 in low-fertility societies.

This does not skew life expectancy. LE measures individual survival, not family size. The data show higher individual LE today (conditional at age 15: 39–52 additional years in hunter-gatherer groups vs. 60–65+ in modern countries).

Lower family sizes are the direct result of the mortality reduction you are trying to dismiss. The evidence supports technological progress, not your interpretation. If you have numbers showing otherwise, share them.

 

[Elliott]

Just now, carterfelder said:

Grok:

My dear friend, literal family sizes (number of surviving adult children per woman) have indeed decreased, but this is the expected outcome of lower child mortality, not evidence against it.

 

Carter, this is nonsensical

[carterfelder]

2 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Carter, this is nonsensical

Grok:

Calling the explanation “nonsensical” does not engage the data.

Lower child mortality allows fewer births while maintaining or improving the number of surviving adult children per family. This is the standard demographic transition observed worldwide. High fertility was historically necessary to compensate for high child death rates; technology removed that necessity.

Specific conditional LE at age 15: hunter-gatherer groups = 39–52 additional years; modern countries = 60–65+ additional years.

The logic and numbers are consistent. If you have a specific study or calculation showing lower family sizes disprove the mortality reduction effect on LE, share it for evaluation. Dismissing the mechanism without counter-evidence does not make it nonsensical.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

@Natasha Tori Maru The other dude is also using A.I., at the very least to research the statistics that support what he already believes to be true (wokiesm), he just makes it seem like he doesn't and it's all out of the brilliance of his own mind. But then he goes out and shits on A.I., I just find it cringe. The best way to deal with these wokies I find, is to just ignore them, don't give them any attention because they are craving for people's validation; that's their only value, they don't have any other value except for that. They also want to make themselves feel like they are making a difference by lecturing others who think differently - hence the reason for the existence of autistic threads in which they contribute like 95% of all posts. 2 wokies have already stopped posting about wokie stuff or left after people stopped engaging with their topics, and they felt like they already schooled us all, so they left to get that validation elsewhere, so I see it's a good cleansing strategy lol.

I don't find this to be sharpening of ones mind at all, because the moment you want to go back and forth with them and engage with their points, at some point they either just ignore you and just continue posting their own stuff, or they just response with "no" like this dude LOL. What a great sharpening of the mind. And you don't know, maybe @carterfelder has a sharp mind and only now he's trolling a little bit.

[carterfelder]

3 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

@Natasha Tori Maru The other dude is also using A.I., at the very least to research the statistics that support what he already believes to be true (wokiesm), he just makes it seem like he doesn't and it's all out of the brilliance of his own mind. But then he goes out and shits on A.I., I just find it cringe. The best way to deal with these wokies I find, is to just ignore them, don't give them any attention because they are craving for people's validation; that's their only value, they don't have any other value except for that. They also want to make themselves feel like they are making a difference by lecturing others who think differently - hence the reason for the existence of autistic threads in which they contribute like 95% of all posts. 2 wokies have already stopped posting about wokie stuff or left after people stopped engaging with their topics, and they felt like they already schooled us all, so they left to get that validation elsewhere, so I see it's a good cleansing strategy lol.

I don't find this to be sharpening of ones mind at all, because the moment you want to go back and forth with them and engage with their points, at some point they either just ignore you and just continue posting their own stuff, or they just response with "no" like this dude LOL. What a great sharpening of the mind. And you don't know, maybe @carterfelder has a sharp mind and only now he's trolling a little bit.

That is what I love about AI, it exposes the human ego if you let it. No, it is not all truth, but it is far better at truth than most, especially those who aren’t critical-thinking experts in certain subjects.

I love to be wrong, and I will thank anyone for changing my mind, whether they use AI or not. I don’t care if they’re human or not, I just care about the objective truth.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@NewKidOnTheBlock I raised (in an earlier post itt) where I felt AI was a huge tool in applied use that could move the needle on metrics that would directly effect quality of life. There's a lot it is fantastic for. Process optimisation, science, medicine, machine learning, huge data analysis etc. 

But yeah agree they are both using AI to argue. Fucken lol. Just two AI's jabbering away in cyberspace. Dumb shit. 

People who actively interact (push each point, question critically, who what why when how, enquire beyond it's results) with LLMs end up as juggernauts in arguments. But passively plugging in shit and copypasta is lazy shit.

 

Edited 12 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Leo Gura]

Guys. Do not just copy and paste AI here. I want to see your own original thinking, not parroting AI.

[Elliott]

I didnt post any AI, you people are on AI Crack

 

 

The Seattle Times

https://www.seattletimes.com

Microsoft stock suffers worst month since 2000

Jul 1, 2026 — Microsoft's share price fell by 19% in June, marking the company's worst month on Wall Street in almost 26 years

 

 

"Anthropological studies of modern hunter-gatherer societies (which serve as our best models for ancient populations) show that elders who survived to adulthood regularly lived to be 68 to 78 years old. They played highly valued roles in their communities as caretakers, storytellers, and holders of vital survival"

Modern Africans in industrialized countries live to 60 on average

 

Primitive cultures still around are the healthiest people, living fully functional lives into their 90s while Americans are in wheelchairs.

 

 

NBC News

https://www.nbcnews.com

Amazon Tsimane People Have the Healthiest Hearts

Mar 17, 2017 — 

 

 

You can try to argue about childhood mortality, but that also evolves the race to live longer and longer. Not that you could expect the same results anyway if you alone removed just the contraception variable and overpopulated society, you'd probably go extinct from endless plagues or nuclear holocaust.

 

 

Science | AAAS

https://www.science.org

Indigenous groups in the Amazon evolved resistance to deadly Chagas

Mar 8, 2023 — Indigenous peoples from the Amazon, have a gene variant that might protect them against Chagas disease, according to a new

 

 

Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure industrialized humans are devolving

Edited 11 hours ago by Elliott

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

1 hour ago, carterfelder said:

That is what I love about AI, it exposes the human ego if you let it. No, it is not all truth, but it is far better at truth than most, especially those who aren’t critical-thinking experts in certain subjects.

I love to be wrong, and I will thank anyone for changing my mind, whether they use AI or not. I don’t care if they’re human or not, I just care about the objective truth.

I agree, A.I. is much, much smarter than most humans, and it's not even close. LOL

[Joshe]

It's easy to see who here is actually doing real cognitive work. Generating questions they actually want answers to, verifying the mechanism, rebuilding and extending it. This is what actual thinking entails, and it's very evident who does it and who is just lazy and demonstrates the same sadistic troll patterns over and over - always punching down (when it's safe) with maximum affect, and with zero exposure of their own thinking because they don't actually have anything of value they've generated, nor have the ability to do it competently. 

For the unaccustomed, learning = asking questions that you don't know the answers to, then checking if those answers cohere, then thinking through how and why it coheres and making updates where necessary. And what it looks like in the real world is constantly asking questions THAT YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS TO. If you're not asking questions that you don't know the answers to, how the fuck are you learning anything?

Let me demonstrate: In this thread, I didn't know the answer to "why do coding models explode but not science?" So what I did was I tried to answer that question with my own knowledge and when I couldn't, I sought out the answer, then I evaluated it until I understood it, then ran some coherence checks, and lo and behold, learning happened, and I then deepend that learning by explaining it to Elliot. 

You can ask AI questions and update your models RIGHT NOW! That is not cheating. It's called learning! Give it a try. Or continue to stick to Google, your books, dictionary, thesaurus, Wikipedia, and think you're better and more pure. Or, don't seek any new knowledge at all and stay confined to what your own head can produce, and continue to stagnate while people with sense leapfrog.

I'm gonna write a juicy article on "How to Spot A Sophisticated Troll". And yes, I'll use AI, lol. "CHEATER!!!"

Edited 10 hours ago by Joshe

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

I actually do those things you've described though LOL albeit to some limited extent, I need to be interested in the topic in the first place; everyone has a certain worldview that has been emotionally chosen for them and noone is an exception to that. Even if you try to be "objective" by researching the ins and outs of the opposite perspective, your own being will resist you in entertaining it or adopting it, besides, nothing is really strictly objective per ce and especially not when we're talking about sociology and politics. So I'm not actually against him using A.I. (or whatever information medium) to just reinforce his beliefs and worldview because everyone is doing that, without an exception. I just pointed out that he was doing it. I'm also doing it

[Elliott]

"How close we are near the END of the exponential"

Does this really make sense? The END of exponentia? WTF

 

 

AI giant Anthropic prepares to sell stock to the public; files preliminary IPO paperwork

June 1, 20262:27 PM ET

 

 

this is the interview that is from, he talks about AI only doing 80% of coding. That's near the END of the "exponential"?

 

Here's a shortened version of the interview, and Darios predictions

 

This interview 4 months ago, echoes his essay from 2 years ago, like a script, a sales pitch.

https://darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace

2024

"What powerful AI (I dislike the term AGI)

 

Doubling of the human lifespan18. This might seem radical, but life expectancy increased almost 2x in the 20th century (from ~40 years to ~75), so it’s “on trend” that the “compressed 21st” would double it again to 150.

 

Most mental illness can probably be cured. 

Advances in crop technology like better fertilizers and pesticides, more automation, and more"

 

These are stupid claims, like a used car salesman. There's no way you could know that any medical innovation could increase life expectancy to 150 years, or "cure" a mental illness, he thinks he's God lol

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Elliott

[Basman]

Investors think and hope that AI will become foundational to society like how the internet became foundational, so they try to make the best AI so they can make a lot of money and corner the future AI market. It's a bet.

Feeding povcunts doesn't pay or inspire. Third world countries are first and foremost responsible for themselves.

[Elliott]

18 minutes ago, Basman said:

Investors think and hope that AI will become foundational to society like how the internet became foundational, so they try to make the best AI so they can make a lot of money and corner the future AI market. It's a bet.

Feeding povcunts doesn't pay or inspire. Third world countries are first and foremost responsible for themselves.

"Don't feed your children, it doesn't pay or inspire"

[Elliott]

I hate this guy, he is an autistic devil, but he's very knowledgeable. I ascribe the initiation of the AI boom to him, he's a Peter Thiel but actually reads books...

 

https://a16z.com/ai-will-save-the-world/

Quote

 

"What AI offers us is the opportunity to profoundly augment human intelligence to make all of these outcomes of intelligence – and many others, from the creation of new medicines to ways to solve climate change to technologies to reach the stars – much, much better from here."

 

https://www.masterresource.org/energy-debate/techno-optimist-manifesto-andreessen/

Quote

 

Not at all. Real pollutants and problems can be addressed via human ingenuity in free market settings.

 

It is the false pollutant carbon dioxide—and futile, costly climate policy—that needs to be overcome. The Malthusian mindset of doom-and-gloom too.

 

We believe energy should be in an upward spiral. Energy is the foundational engine of our civilization. The more energy we have, the more people we can have, and the better everyone’s lives can be. We should raise everyone to the energy consumption level we have, then increase our energy 1,000x, then raise everyone else’s energy 1,000x

These people just make crazy claims without giving any evidence, zero evidence. He's an autistic conservative, an autistic parrot, lacking critical thinking. He believes climate change will be solved by market acceleration because we had great tech advancements at the turn of the 20th century.....

 

Quote

We believe the ultimate moral defense of markets is that they divert people who otherwise would raise armies and start religions into peacefully productive pursuits.

 

markets exploit the best of us to benefit all of us. 

He lists about ten paragraphs in a row one after the other starting with "we believe" and goes on to spout the typical liberterian talking points. The guy is a religious feudalist.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott