The tragedy: technically feasible, but politically ... not so much.

Sorry, no thankyou.

AI "NFT art collectors requesting a purchase must navigate a landscape fraught with risks, primarily centering on fraud and scams, lack of regulation, and the nuances of digital ownership. The principle of caveat emptor (buyer beware) is intensely relevant in this market.

You'd get pissed and likely sue your neighbor for neglecting to tell you of smoke flowing from a window - that your house is on fire ... but here we are: we continue to tolerate censorship of climate science by conservative news media.

Gemini's take:
"Wealthy individuals' inability to see the danger of climate change is explained by a combination of psychological barriers, self-interest, and social dynamics. .... www.google.com/search?q=wha...

AI is dangerous, but it's not going away;

It's foolish not to use AI search - it understands our questions, and it provides evidence-based answers - even in the political sphere - in plain language.

Fox and Newsmax should be concerned:

With AI search, I'd be worried if I had evidence-free political beliefs and narratives.

Ask AI about immigrant crimes for example:

There's much to be worried about with AI, but commenting as a patient clinical research advocate, AI search for medical questions is a godsend. Before it, the public was fed alt med bullshit, with AI search you get summaries based on evidence and you get the sources.

I think you have it right. Thank you. BTW: We all make mistakes. A big one made by climate scientists being to demonize advocates sharing the worsening trends as "doomers," which likely inspired Mr. Gates' recipe for the world - outside his field of expertise of course.

We all make mistakes. A big one made by climate scientists being to demonize advocates sharing the worsening trends as "doomers," which likely inspired Mr. Gates' recipe for the world - outside his field of expertise of course.

If I have it right: "excess mortality is not data. It's one of many possible scenario model for a reality that didn’t happen.

The difference in excess deaths depends a lot on the selected baseline.

Very good work, but unlikely to be read or to persuade the voting public (holding the power in a democracy), which is the existential challenge of our times. We need easy to understand analogies more than ever right now.

I feel that pushback on doomerism by climate scientists influenced Gates as described here:

The article doesn't mention climate change as the cause. Unfortunately denial and journalistic malpractice in this area is widespread:

Just a short while ago, the findings of Dr. Hansen on Climate Sensitivity to co2 were characterized as extreme without addressing the physics he outlined in his paper - as he put it here. Seems as if recent developments have vindicated his research and warnings.

youtu.be/fsnv53HVC2o

Suspicious sources 1.01 - manifestos proclaimed by a person outside of their field of training. Linus Pauling all over again.

Where have we've seen this before?

Notables giving advice on policies outside of their field?

Correspond on social media (sure), but copy your best commentary to local papers as op ed pieces - where it can possibly persuade the broader public.