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.