Read the article. This applies to outdoor jobs only.

Yes, outdoor work should already have had this!

The URL returns a 404...

Thanks, not sure what went wrong, but fixed it now

Because that holds true only for efficient markets.

> Asimov's laws of robotics are flawed too, of course.

I always find the common references to Asimov's laws funny. They are broken in just about every one of his books. They are crime novels where, if a robot was involved, there was some workaround of the laws.

I asked Claude the great wall question, and the answer is not what the article describes:

That claim is false — and it actually mixes up two separate myths!

The Great Wall of China is not visible from Spain. Spain is roughly 9,000+ km away from China — no artificial structure on Earth is visible from that distance with the naked eye.

You're likely thinking of the popular myth that the Great Wall is "visible from space" or "from the Moon." That's also false:

(it then goes on with a detailed, perfect answer).

And it's a very weak example in my view.

In fact it's in the article - the reason the Great Wall myth exists is because it's so prevalent on the internet... Presumably because a a lot of conscious people also believe it. Plenty of people walking around today, fully conscious, believe things that aren't factually true.

A child might make the same "seen from spain" mistake, but we would never say the same child wasn't conscious.

>I asked Claude the great wall question, and the answer is not what the article describes:

One answer is not. Answers are semi-random due to temperature.

The answer also shows little understanding of the distance vs height issue. Or that the reason for the mixup could be that Spain and space sound similar, which is what a human would pick up.

> So when Becker asked ChatGPT (at the time of writing his book, it has been updated since)

Why didn't the author of the article take the 30s I did, and redo the experiment today, with Claude? Rather important, since Claude is what impressed Dawkins, and that impression is the core subject of the article.

Doesn't the quoted sentence indicate they did? How would they have known it has been updated since otherwise?

Answers are non-deterministic. The fact that answers vary doesn't mean there's been an update.

> If they are mapping that to "reduction in green energy" or "reversal of green energy adoption" I think they are very wrong indeed.

Because there is a global trend towards green energy use, caused by economic factors. It's bound to be more expressive outside the US, because of politics.

> Because there is a global trend towards green energy use, caused by economic factors. It's bound to be more expressive outside the US, because of politics.

"caused by economic factors" is precisely why I think the conclusion is wrong. The US, if nothing else, structurally prioritizes profit, even if it it does dumb, short-sighted things at times.

It's still to be determined if the drop is temporary. From the outside (EU) I see a downward uninterrupted trend since 9/11 and the Patriot Act.

> It's still to be determined if the drop is temporary.

It better be! I think it is wrong to root for “downfall”, even if it makes sense to diversify your risk.

Of course. I'm not rooting for the US' downfall. It is a loss of western values. It saddens me, but it is a fact they're veering away from the French Revolution principles.

They are veering away from the American revolution principles... (Which preceded and directly inspired the french revolution principles)

Have you tried it with something like OpenSpec? Strangely, taking the time to lay out the steps in a large task helps immensely. It's the difference between the behavior you describe and just letting it run productively for segments of ten or fifteen minutes.

I'm Portuguese, so read this as a view from outside. Brexit traded rigid limits on national action for soft limits. It is bonkers, because the soft limits are much harsher!

Take, for example, trade policy. Facing trade tariffs from the US, Europe can call the bluff, the UK is way too small to have any cards on the negotiating table. It is much better to be in a huge economic block than to face the bully alone. On paper you have more formal power alone, in practice you have no power whatsoever on your own.

The absence of formal action limits can be deceitful. Limits are not only there anyhow, they are worse for you outside the economic block.

So, no, you won't be better in 20 years. In fact, given the direction the world is going, you'll be worse than even today.