Sure, but there is a difference between you making an uninformed and dangerous decision for yourself vs making an uninformed and dangerous decision for your child who is unable to decide for themselves. Especially considering we’re taking about diseases and conditions that have a relatively high chance of chronic or terminal outcomes.

Sure. That if is still holding up your entire argument. Counter point, there are plenty of vaccines we don’t administer because the risk of the vaccine doesn’t outweigh the benefits. Off the top of my head, I can think of polio and smallpox vaccinces. There are large organizations doing actual research and crunching the numbers to find out, so we already do consider the efficacy before we just inject kids full of vaccines for no reason.

I imagine, if you went to court about not wanting your child to receive a certain medical treatment, and you showed up with 50 or so peer reviewed and supported journal articles showing the benefits of the treatments along with the risk and their rate of occurrence, then referenced current and predicted rates for the conditions they are medicating against and the severity of those conditions and summarizes with your own peer reviewed research that the particular treatment is no longer efficacious… Then you can make the claim that you did your own research.

If you show up with a fucking Facebook post and a Bible, then the state ought to take your kids away for their own safety.

If*

I hope that word is getting hazard and overtime pay with the entire weight of your argument resting on it.

If your research came to the conclusion that feeding your kid gave them too high of a risk of diabetes, should you legally be allowed to starve them to death?

If you were a good parent, you’d read up on what the risks were for vaccinations vs catching the disease and realize that even the worst performing vaccines are 300+ times less dangerous than an infection, instead of relying on Jenny McCarthy’s fucking Facebook posts as a source of medical information.

Sure sure, but should parent be allowed to forego low-risk, high-efficacy medical advice to the long term detriment of their child’s and other children’s health? Children, who are unable to legally advocate for themselves…

Right, but the number of people spreading the same wrong thing in multiple threads hours after they were openly provided direct info as to their error, starts to make it seem like a coordinated disinfo campaign.

Yes, it is possible to be wrong on the internet without a malicious intent. It’s also possible to spread disinfo without being a malicious actor, since the whole point of disinfo is to get other people to take it up and spread it, occluding the real issue and disrupting genuine conversation about it.

For clarity, I am not accusing you of being a malicious or disingenuous actor here. No offense, but I doubt you arrived at your position in a vacuum, you probably heard it from somewhere else first I imagine?

How does this point keep coming up? It’s been refuted like a dozen times in every post I see. Feels like intentional disinfo at this point.

Oh no. We produce stuff. The best weapons for killing people are made here.

Actual AI?

Imagine your phone knows that you have a business meeting downtown today. It’s already reserved a parking space for you, set your car to warm up before you leave and looped your contact in on your ETA, along with automatically notifying you of any delays. Then, your kid wakes up this morning in with a horrible toothache, you ask your phone what to do and it rings up your family dentist, who has a full schedule today, but makes you a referral nearby. You agree to try that other dentist today, and your AI books an appointment, checks your meeting today, coordinates with their AIs and approves a 15 minute delay so you can get to the dentist. It also notifies your kid’s school of their absence and has their teachers AI automatically queued up to send transcripts, notes and homework assignmenta from today’s classes.

That’s the kind of stuff actual AI can do. Overgrown autocorrect? It’s basically a multi-billion dollar Magic Eightball.

Wrong.

The best things you can do are invest in green energy and energy storage projects, create polices that cap (and actually punish) carbon emissions, upgrade to more efficient infrastructure… All things that take money, a functional government and a functional economy.

What we learned from COVID, is that crashing the economy does not really slow down climate change, it just hits the pause button for a little bit, and then it resumes at the same or greater speed.

Yeah, this makes sense to me. ChatGPT isn’t crunching the numbers, looking at conservative ideology, foreign policy goals and media optics before recommending the ideal number for the trump admin to implement. Instead it’s just looking for the most widely publicized set of numbers in relation to that query and regurgitating that.

Yeah, keep in mind that Elon couldn’t get level 3 working in a closed, pre-mapped circuit. The robotaxis were just remotely operated.

It’s hard to tell, but from about 15 minutes of searching, I was unable to locate any consumer vehicles that include a LIDAR system. Lots of cars include RADAR, for object detection, even multiple RADAR systems for parking. There may be some which includes a TimeOfFlight sensor, which is like LIDAR, but static and lacks the resolution/fidelity. My Mach-E which has level 2 automation uses a combination of computer vision, RADAR and GPS. I was unable to locate a LIDAR sensor for the vehicle.

The LIDAR system in Mark’s video is quite clearly a pre-production device that is not affiliated with the vehicle manufacturer it was being tested on.

Adding, after more searching, it looks like the polestar 3, some trim levels of the Audi A8 and the Volvo EX90 include a LiDAR sensor. Curious to see how the consumer grade tech works out in real world.

Please do not mistake this comment as “AI/computer vision” evangelisim. I currently have a car that uses those technologies for automation, and I would not and do not trust my life or anyone else’s to that system.

deleted by creator

Because the march of technological advancement is inevitable?

In light of recent (and let’s face it, long ago cases) Tesla’s “Full Self Driving” needs to be downgraded to level 2 at best.

Level 2: Partial Automation

The vehicle can handle both steering and acceleration/deceleration, but the driver must remain engaged and ready to take control.

Pretty much the same level as other brands self driving feature.