Because, in case there is any doubt, under current political and economic arrangements that is the only possible outcome of a hypothetical AGI that is actually capable of replacing human labour. Everything else is wish-thinking.

I still do not understand why we would need AGI. We already have it!, in ourselves. All I want is highly specialised AI tools that automate repetitive busywork.

Why do you want AGI? I assume it is not to create a cyberpunk dystopia where everybody except billionaires' private police is unemployed?

Surely there are well-established approaches for this. How do major media outlets cover public statements of, say, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard regarding their actions during anti-government protests?

In practice it is, though, in most countries for most elected officials these days. The people who want to change the world for the better mostly get filtered out early.

I would not be more befuddled if Nature had instead published a piece by a tentacle alien that insists we have to paint all our buildings burgundy to balance the planet's humours.

Is there a consensus whether this is a satirical act or if the author ate very colourful mushrooms before writing it? It reminds me of Time Cube.

I can't imagine there would be any projection that produces lines of latitude like this, so I assume this is generative AI?

I fear you underestimate the desire of many people and governments worldwide to believe that things are back to normal and nothing bad is ever going to happen again in their lifetimes if you only get four years of a Democrat president doing nothing to fix any of the issues that made Trump possible.

Keanu Reeves had like one single facial expression throughout, hard to even speak of 'acting'. (Laurence Fishburne had great presence, though.) The spoon, ye gods, trying so hard to be deep and philosophical, and then: more bullets in slow motion!

The Matrix is a Camp classic, really.

They are doing that every single time, it seems. Does The Independent not understand what a subtitle is?
bsky.app/profile/the-...

I saw that when it came out, but Frontiers are not serious journals, and we should not waste our time reviewing for them or MDPI anyway. We can aim for high standards e.g. in society journals, but not where the editors only pretend to have peer review and don't care beyond 'number of papers go up'.

Same for marking every single typo instead of writing "the manuscript has a lot of typos, those need to be fixed". If reviewers believe they need to do the authors', the associate editor's, and the production editor's jobs all at once it is no surprise we find it difficult to find reviewers.

It really isn't. It is our job to confirm that the methodology is sound, that the conclusions follow from the results, that the results are novel, etc. If you check all references you are wasting your very valuable domain expertise on preempting the production editor's complementary expertise.

That seems like a publication ethics problem, because in that case they shouldn't be *an* author of the paper, much less the first author.

I also find it unlikely that flower or fruit colours would be directly determined by UV radiation or cold. Being attractive to pollinators and dispersers is existential. Instead, abiotic or historical factors may regionally filter for certain plant groups or for animals that prefer certain colours.

This means that there is a potential for bias because of what limited data happened to be included. For example, I am astonished by the idea that purple is the dominant flower colour in Australia's arid zone; but the only clades they have for this area in supplementary data are Rubus and Smilax.

Your staff use Office, so now you owe Microsoft a share of all your business revenue in addition to the Office subscription fee you already paid [wearing pants on head emoji].