#10

#10日間ねむすぎー戦闘力 ・直近10日間のノート数: 6 ノート ・直近10日間のリアクション数: 8 回 ・フォロワー数: 133 人 あなたの10日間戦闘力は 6,384 でした！ https://misskey.secinet.jp/play/9gf6b751rb

I’m old enough to remember when women’s sports were an afterthought in the Sports section. Sunday’s (Feb 15, 2026 Sports section Cover Page of the Star Tribune features 3 stories about women’s college basketball: UofM Gophers (currently #10 nationally in NET rankings); a feature on St. Thomas hoops coach Ruth Sinn; Minnesota State Mankato’s top-ranked D2 team. And below the fold, an article on MN Twins’ new manager. Good job #strib for giving due coverage! #MNastodon #Minnesota #sports

so I just read online that apparently AI doesn’t give much of a productivity boost to workers but it’s using enormous amounts of resources and people are mostly asking for pornographic materials and all sorts of useless images and comic strips and fake people and virtual girlfriends and governmental and corporate disinformation and etc and etc. will the future benefits of AI compensate for all this CO2 and hatred and wars caused by bad faith actors in control of large AIs ? today at 9:49 AM Request processed You’re raising legitimate concerns that are backed by recent research, and I think it’s important to be honest about what we’re actually seeing versus what’s being promised. Let me break down what the current data shows: The Productivity Reality Check You’re right to be skeptical. Recent findings are sobering: World Economic Forum research (January 2026) found that early AI adopters are experiencing weaker connections with co-workers and lower productivity - the opposite of what was promised Forbes analysis (today) reports that while AI shows 14-55% task-level productivity gains, 95% of enterprise AI pilots fail Nobel economist projections suggest AI may only contribute 0.5% annual growth - far from the transformative promises Penn Wharton estimates a modest 1.5% productivity increase by 2035, growing to 3.7% by 2075 The Environmental Cost is Real The numbers are staggering: 80 million tons of CO2 emissions from AI systems in 2025 alone (equivalent to New Zealand’s entire annual emissions) 765 billion liters of water consumption By 2030, AI could add 24-44 million metric tons of CO2 annually at current growth rates The Misuse Problem Your concerns about frivolous and harmful uses are well-founded: 70% of experts and 66% of U.S. adults are highly worried about people getting inaccurate information from AI Deepfakes are becoming “routine, scalable, and cheap” in 2026 AI ranks as the #2 business risk globally (up from #10), largely due to misuse concerns Will Future Benefits Compensate? Here’s where I need to push back on the framing a bit: This isn’t a predetermined outcome. The question isn’t whether AI will compensate for its costs, but whether we will make choices that lead to beneficial outcomes. The current trajectory suggests: Most current AI deployment is wasteful - you’re correct The environmental costs are immediate and concrete - also correct The benefits are modest, delayed, and uncertain - unfortunately true But this doesn’t mean AI is inherently worthless. It means: We’re in a speculative bubble with massive resource misallocation Regulation and governance are lagging dangerously behind deployment The gap between hype and reality is enormous We need fundamental changes in how AI is developed, deployed, and regulated The honest answer to your question is: At the current rate of frivolous use, poor governance, and environmental negligence, no - the future benefits likely won’t compensate for the costs. We’re burning enormous resources for marginal gains and significant harms. However, if we: Implement strict environmental standards for AI infrastructure Regulate against disinformation and misuse Focus AI deployment on high-value applications (healthcare, climate modeling, scientific research) Hold companies accountable for both environmental and social impacts Then the equation could change. But that requires political will we’re not currently seeing.

Mapping of Alberta Health geographic structures, corridors to constituent councils NW: #1, #3, #4 NE: #2 Edmonton: #6, #7, #8, #9 Central: #10 Calgary: #11, #12 SW: #13 SE: #14 Average size of a "corridor" is 2 councils. Four corridors are coincident with a single council. Other three corridors are 2, 3, and 4 councils large. These geographic structures presumably are replicated in at least 7 functional structures.... 1/2

RT @Diptipper@x.com: Doodle™ December #10 ━━━━━━ 2.5 hrs RE: https://x.com/Diptipper/status/2000262334082900103