FaceDeer

Does that mean that a country that imports 100% of the oil it burns should be counted as having no emissions?

Yeah, all that stuff about filtration systems and big tanks sounds way more expensive than just buying a new goldfish every couple of months.

Parakeets are also on there and they’re not real either.

Perhaps it’s logarithmic. Which makes the magnification needed to see sea monkeys even more impressive.

Sure, but having a smoking section in Tim Hortons isn’t going to change that. I’d think it’d make it more likely for smokers to throw their butts out in a manner that can be properly disposed of, rather than making them smoke outside.

Note that I’m not advocating smoking or smoking sections. Smoking is awful on many levels and I’d rather see it go away entirely. I’m just pointing out that it’s ridiculous to say having a smoking section in Tim Hortons is going to have a significant impact on the environment. Jumping to “this is going to fuck the planet” is crying wolf, it’s going to result in people either getting sick of environmentalism or more subtly problematic it’ll result in people thinking they’re making a difference when they’re not. The plastic straw ban, for example. Plastic straws were never a major contributor to ocean plastic waste. By far the largest contributor to ocean plastic waste is discarded fishing equipment, but I don’t see any campaigning to reduce seafood consumption. People banned straws instead and then thought they’d accomplished something.

Even this post showing it off feels like satire, how exactly does a room with cigarette smoke in it “fuck the planet?” Do people think cigarette smoke emissions are remotely relevant on a global scale? Poe’s law is strong in this one.

So no point trying to attract it to Canada, then?

Make something up and try to get it popular enough to matter, if you refuse to use the terms that have already gained traction and that you’re familiar with. As far as I’m aware there’s just AGI and ASI.

The ship’s computer could whip up an AGI (Moriarty) in response to a simple command. The Federation later systematized this in the form of emergency holographic officers.

That’s even more “wrong,” though. Plenty of AI is deterministic, and plenty of nondeterministic computing isn’t AI.

I have provided them.

I don’t see what this has to do with the meaning of the term AI.

If a marketing department somewhere starts trying to push the slogan “ice cream for your car!” As a way to sell gasoline, would it make sense to start complaining that the stuff Ben & Jerry’s is selling isn’t actually gasoline?

I don’t know what you mean by “historical”, because the stuff we’ve got now is what is historically known as AI.

If you mean the Star Trek stuff, though, then the specific terms for those are AGI (Artificial General Intelligence, an AI that’s capable of doing basically everything a human can) and ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence, an AI that’s capable of doing more than what a human can).

We don’t have AGI yet, but there’s no reason to assume we can’t eventually figure it out. Brains are made of matter, so by fiddling with bits of matter we should eventually be able to make it do whatever a brain can. We have an example showing what’s possible, we just need to figure out how to make one of our own.

ASI is a little more speculative since we don’t have any known examples of naturally-occurring superintelligence. But I also think it’s a bit unlikely that humans just happen to be the smartest things that can exist.

You’re providing a prime example of misunderstanding. The term AI has been in professional use for a wide variety of algorithms, including machine learning and neural nets like LLMs, since the Dartmouth conference in 1956. It’s the people who only know what AI is like from Star Trek and other such sources that are misinformed.