AI

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > AI > Page 2

Page 2 of 2

2

01-01-2020 20:05
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Has anyone noticed that right now most interactions with business or govt involve a person at the other end that is interacting with a computer. Guess what - that person you are interacting with will do what the computer tells them to do every time. That person at the other end of the conversation won't think for them self. These computers are in charge and it's getting worse. Watch out. Yes I do. I would not be suprised if we are used by a AI as biorobots working for it to keep the network going. The only problem it has is a future depletion problem of coal, oil etc that could end its existence and therefore I would not be suprised if in the nearest future we hear about the breakthrough in fusion energy. That moment we hear about it I am sure we a ruled by a AI.
01-01-2020 20:10
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	Whoa Xadoman, that's way above my pay grade.
01-01-2020 20:12
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	Thanks for the info James.
01-01-2020 20:30
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	keepit wrote: Thanks for the info James. Your Welcome.
01-01-2020 23:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	James___ wrote: keepit wrote: The thing with AI is that the computers are doing more thinking than we are. If they could tell us when the Ross Ice Shelf was going to crack off that would be helpful. The Ross is holding back a huge amount of glacier in antarctica from sliding into the ocean, enough to raise the sea level 10 feet everywhere. It would need to have a volume of 264,583 cubic miles. Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again. James___ wrote: Antarctica has a surface area of 5,410,000 square miles. That means that Antarctica would need lose an amount of ice equal to 258 feet in depth across it's entire surface. The information I found states that the Ross Ice Shelf is comparable in size to Spain and is about 0.62 miles deep. If so then it's volume is about 121,172 cubic miles. That comes out as about 4.6 feet. Isn't math fun No math here...move along...move along... James___ wrote: They say 40 ft if it slides into the ocean. The Ross Ice shelf is floating. James___ wrote: There's little we can do to stop Mother Nature. Why would you want to? James___ wrote: And if the Ross ice shelf breaks loose, this doesn't mean that other ice is going to melt as well and flow into the ocean. ...deleted irrelevant material... True. Especially since it breaks loose and refreezes each year. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 01-01-2020 23:34

02-01-2020 01:27
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: keepit wrote: The thing with AI is that the computers are doing more thinking than we are. If they could tell us when the Ross Ice Shelf was going to crack off that would be helpful. The Ross is holding back a huge amount of glacier in antarctica from sliding into the ocean, enough to raise the sea level 10 feet everywhere. It would need to have a volume of 264,583 cubic miles. Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again. James___ wrote: Antarctica has a surface area of 5,410,000 square miles. That means that Antarctica would need lose an amount of ice equal to 258 feet in depth across it's entire surface. The information I found states that the Ross Ice Shelf is comparable in size to Spain and is about 0.62 miles deep. If so then it's volume is about 121,172 cubic miles. That comes out as about 4.6 feet. Isn't math fun No math here...move along...move along... James___ wrote: They say 40 ft if it slides into the ocean. The Ross Ice shelf is floating. James___ wrote: There's little we can do to stop Mother Nature. Why would you want to? James___ wrote: And if the Ross ice shelf breaks loose, this doesn't mean that other ice is going to melt as well and flow into the ocean. ...deleted irrelevant material... True. Especially since it breaks loose and refreezes each year. Счто? По Английски пожалуйста! We can stop Mother Nature. It's called deforestation and polluting our oceans and streams. And we're doing really good right now. Whatta ya mean you don't like math. You remind me a lot of my American brother. That's a compliment
02-01-2020 03:19
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	James___ wrote: James___ wrote: It would need to have a volume of 264,583 cubic miles. Whatta ya mean you don't like math. You remind me a lot of my American brother. That's a compliment James__, as general heuristic, I don't do number-crunching ... but I'll do this one for you. The earth's radius is 20,924,640 feet at the equator, establishing an upper limit. The earth's radius is 20,924,640 feet at the poles, establishing a lower limit. The volume of water required to raise the ocean 10 feet in each case is [ 4/3 * pi * Radius+10feet^3 - 4/3 * pi * Radius^3 ] * 71% (percentage of ocean) Ergo: 71% * pi * 4/3 * [Radius+10feet^3 - Radius^3] cubic feet 2.94 * [ (Radius+10)^3 - (Radius)^3 ] cubic feet Upper Limit: 2.94 * [ 20924650^3 - 20924640^3 ] cubic feet Lower Limit: 2.94 * [ 20856010^3 - 20856000^3 ] cubic feet Upper Limit: 2.94 * [ 9.1617E+21 - 9.16166E+21 ] cubic feet Lower Limit: 2.94 * [ 9.0718E+21 - 9.07179E+21 ] cubic feet Upper Limit: 2.94 * [ 1.31352E+16 ] cubic feet Lower Limit: 2.94 * [ 1.30492E+16 ] cubic feet Upper Limit: 2.94 * 89235.09378 = 262351.1757 cubic miles Lower Limit: 2.94 * 88650.61069 = 260632.7954 cubic miles Your estimate of 264,583 cubic miles seems to exceed the upper limit ... but not by much. I think your number is OK to throw around, but I would recommend adjusting it to within the above limits first. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-01-2020 06:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: keepit wrote: The thing with AI is that the computers are doing more thinking than we are. If they could tell us when the Ross Ice Shelf was going to crack off that would be helpful. The Ross is holding back a huge amount of glacier in antarctica from sliding into the ocean, enough to raise the sea level 10 feet everywhere. It would need to have a volume of 264,583 cubic miles. Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again. James___ wrote: Antarctica has a surface area of 5,410,000 square miles. That means that Antarctica would need lose an amount of ice equal to 258 feet in depth across it's entire surface. The information I found states that the Ross Ice Shelf is comparable in size to Spain and is about 0.62 miles deep. If so then it's volume is about 121,172 cubic miles. That comes out as about 4.6 feet. Isn't math fun No math here...move along...move along... James___ wrote: They say 40 ft if it slides into the ocean. The Ross Ice shelf is floating. James___ wrote: There's little we can do to stop Mother Nature. Why would you want to? James___ wrote: And if the Ross ice shelf breaks loose, this doesn't mean that other ice is going to melt as well and flow into the ocean. ...deleted irrelevant material... True. Especially since it breaks loose and refreezes each year. Счто? По Английски пожалуйста! We can stop Mother Nature. It's called deforestation and polluting our oceans and streams. And we're doing really good right now. Whatta ya mean you don't like math. You remind me a lot of my American brother. That's a compliment RDCF. I never said I don't like math. You weren't using any math. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 2 of 2

2

Join the debate AI:

Related content

Threads	Replies	Last post
Chatbots sometimes make things up. Is AI's hallucination problem fixable?	5	03-08-2023 13:20
WHEN IS OPEN SOURCE AI NOT OPEN SOURCE AI?	42	26-07-2023 02:56
Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft and other tech firms agree to AI safeguards set by the White House	0	21-07-2023 19:45
Ai was used to MURDER a child..............!	0	12-07-2023 21:29
AI Robot Soldier Video	11	01-07-2023 03:34

▲ Top of page

Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact