I believe there will be people who let LLMs only do untrusted jobs. Human writes a specification, AI writes an implementation along with a proof that it adheres to the spec.
I think a better example is that programmers use AI to autocomplete text. They could write the exact same text by hand or use a dumber autocomplete but there is no reason to. The product is exactly the same just delivered with slightly less wear on the programmer's fingers.
The amount of meat people want to eat necessitates factory farming and that is a great breeding ground for animal-borne disease.
Meat also concentrates heavy metals in the animal's diet. The quantity of meat consumption is making us sick.
It depends on what you are practicing. If it involves things out of your control, for instance poker, you definitely shouldn't adjust after every result. In the poker case that leads to not playing well just because you lost one time.
Even in less random things you have to be absolutely sure you found the problem before adjusting.
My guess would be that using a desktop computer to make the queries and read the results consumes more power than the LLM, at least in the case of quickly answering models.
The expensive part is training a model but usage is most likely not sold at a loss, so it can't use an unreasonable amount of energy.
Instead of this ridiculous energy argument, we should focus on the fact that AI (and other products that money is thrown at) aren't actually that useful but companies control the narrative. AI is particularly successful here with every CEO wanting in on it and people afraid it is so good it will end the world.
I did enjoy World though it involved a lot of interacting with bad UI and walking to a monster. Can't really complain about grind, as you don't have to fight the same monster too much. The story cutscenes and missions were painfully bad.
What I did like was fighting one big enemy rather that hordes of small ones, having to be close and it being risky, exotic weapon movesets. It is great that you can and do use the environment to your advantage all the time.
I would like to see a game that does the fighting big enemies in terrain but with more physics based attacks. The hitbox-based combat where you can put your hammer inside the beast and then swing feels silly.
I didn't like the equipment upgrades much as they only get interesting late in the game and all weapons of the same base type are essentially the same.
On KotOR you may be missing the point. It barely has any gameplay. Combat is pretty easy and over quickly. The point of anything in that game is storytelling and fun quests, the mechanics are just good enough to not get in your way too much.
One thing to note is that many people agree that Taris sucks because it is mostly linear and the fun quests only start when the game opens up. Taris may be necessary to set up the plot, though.
We still have a lot of roofs that could have solar on them. Scaling up nuclear will deplete fuel mines faster because the isotopes that are legal due to arms treaties are pretty limited.
I'm not claiming that electric transmission is more efficient always because it isn't. But as you say it is close.
In a scenario where a train drives at a constant speed forever, attaching the engine to the wheels directly is a clear winner.
However, with varying torque requirements, an ICE can't always operate at maximum efficiency. They are especially bad at starting from a standstill. You can get a good overview of the concept from this wiki article.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_band
Startups on the other hand have people pursuing ideas that have been proven to not work. The better starups mostly just sell old innovations that do work.
We are comparing attaching a diesel engine via a gearbox to attaching it via generator and electric speed controller.
Electrically driven wheels can deliver just the right amount of power at over 95% efficiency. Direct ICE suffers because it cannot always run the engine in ideal conditions, reducing its efficiency.
We do this in locomotives but not in cars because cars need to be lightweight. Actually, nuclear is clearly the best vehicle propulsion, almost infinite range and high power. It is only used in ships due to its weight.
The tire thing is completely made up. Yes, they sell their premium tires but they are not necessary and do not contain electronics. https://www.tesla.com/support/tires
You are arguing a side rather than looking at facts.
You are correct that it is best to have a lightweight car if you have to have one. But an electric one does take over in environmental cost relative quickly and is cheaper in countries that don't subsidize fossil fuels and tax emissions. In addition the air quality in cities improves.
Also, it is relatively easy to understand conflicts happening near you. People take very strong stances on faraway conflicts even though it is hard to know what is actually going on, especially in issues that there is a lot of propaganda or polarized opinions about. You'd have to do a few days' research to have a chance to understand some complex faraway problem.
Not really hidden, though. Often Linux distros even have gcc preinstalled.
Will it stay around? Yes, because it allows writing performant software as our CPUs and compilers are made for it and performance does matter very often.
On the other hand, Rust is being used even in the Linux kernel now. It lets you do the same things as C, so the only thing holding it back right now are the lack of some more exotic C extensions like guaranteed tail calls / computed goto.
For an actually hidden language, try Mercury. It is not famous or widely used and its tooling is not quick to get started with. However, it will definitely broaden your horizons much more than C, which is similar to all the mainstream languages.
It is the best on the market but unfortunately they just use Google underneath plus their own blog index. And at least to me it seems it isn't going in a better direction.
I learned about this via Guix but didn't notice that. Nice!