>I don't think I can match the inconsistency of your "logic": human brain is on Earth so it's by definition "realizable", but fusion isn't? Another human brain

>I don't think I can match the inconsistency of your "logic": human brain is on Earth so it's by definition "realizable", but fusion isn't? Another human brain can be as much as 2 feet away from you. You're it. The core of the sun you can't even touch it and it involves unimaginable forces and energy levels never generated on earth. If you can't see the consistency of my logic, then you're illogical. Plain and simple. >"Trendlines", before being trusted by "scientists to predict things", are carefully examined and only some of them have any "probability" attached to them. Statistics is not probability (which speaks of chance for something to happen), but instead observation of past patterns. Extrapolation into the future is applied very carefully and with sufficient backing. They have probability. Past patterns are more likely to happen in the future. Extrapolation given what information we have is the best bet. It's not a sure fire bet but it's the best one we have. Your bet of zero information, random gut feelings, anecdotal facts with zero quantification is utter bullshit. >You also seem to suggest that OpenAI releasing ChatGPT to the public at a huge financial loss has not led to huge investment in generative AI all over the industry and all over the world since there was no "feedback loop" — my point was that this has provided a huge push by getting many smart people working on it after ChatGPT became available to everyone, thus leading to a continuing upward "trendline" in LLM development: it's as self-reinforcing as the example you give with stocks. In statistics, one aberrant huge spike like this one is usually smoothed over a longer time period: the hustlers usually look for the steepest part of the curve and promote that instead. Did I suggest that? How about no i didn't suggest that. You suggested that. There is no feedback loop genius. AI is tech nobody has ever seen before and they invested into it because of how obviously exciting it is. There is no feedback loop of buying at the peek and selling at the dip by observing a trendline. You're just arbitrarily trying to bend the whole situation to fit the analogy and it only makes your argument worse. I'm done with you. We can agree to disagree but I'm sorry to say anyone seeing your argument will just laugh. Good day sir.