John Carr

I have no idea in detail how it works. I know how a neural network can be trained for a particular problem. I get that it forgets everything said at the end of each session but that if you stay in a session it builds on the answer.

This is interesting.
I am a bit surprised Green has not grown more, based mainly on their boasts.
Is it a conclusion that most Con seats have to LibDem?

Thanks. I have simple needs. Free is good.

Could you give me a clear what I will see? I am happy with what free Claude gives me.

What are you arguing? Any AI system will make mistakes? Certainly I agree. That something is better than Claude? If so please say what.

In my experience Claude is able to make corrections. Not everything or everybody can. I have known it for less than two weeks nut I am impressed.

Restoring the USA health and science research system should be a priority. The USA is going to need a second Reconstruction era after Trump. I hope this one ends better than the first one.

Who knows. The misconception that nuclear fusion would have much safer waste than nuclear fission. Claude was able to access thee nuclear phhsics details when question. I know of nothing else which can so quickly.

I had a long discussion about nuclear fusion which was vastly more technical the Gemini or ChatGPT. Was able to refine the answers when I disputed some frequent misconceptions about fusion.

I dont have a phone book anymore. What Claude give is a concise summary much better tha Google. I gave this as an example because I liked it. Will give another example.

Surely someone is going to blame this on Global Warming.

All performance, no substance.

Why not The Economist?

It is to be expected that the later version is better. I am very happy to have found a free tool much better than any other free tool I can find.

I am using free Claude Sonnet 4.5.
I find it vastly better than everything I have tried: ChatGPT, Gemini and classic Google search.
Last was “Find indoor playgrounds in Geneva for a toddler”. It gave me a complete and consise summary, with links and maps, of all options.
Claude will change a lot.

- AGO Markaðsþjónusta AGO hefur frá 2013 hjálpað fyrirtækjum, stofnunum og félagasamtökum um allt land að hámarka árangur í markaðssetningu. Við tryggjum að hver króna í auglýsingum skili raunverulegum viðskiptavinum. Sími...

Thanks for this. I learned the existence of Claude a week ago. It is vastly better than ChatGPT on serious scientific questions. I have started to use Claude for simple things I would in the past have used Google search for, always better: clear and concise.

I hope you know what the atmospheric level is.

Seems like you do not know the basic answer to climate warming science. I do, I did what you suggest over 50 years ago.

Been in it all day, feel fine.

OK. What is the best estimate for the increase in temperature for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, together with it's uncertainty?

It appears to cost 128 euros to do so.
On my level, the question hear is does increased CO2 increase crop growth. Yes or no? Simple.

Would you at least agree that scientific right and wrong are independent of who makes a statement?

For me the details are essential. Some statements are true, others are not. I have only ever seen one presentation by Ridley. It was about plants and CO2. It was sensible. Do you believe plants do not need CO2 to grow?

I flicked through this looking for statistics on party membership in different countries but found few.
What is a "Party".
In France, Macron started with a movement "En Marche", then started party "Renaissance". Neither has any resemblance to a "Party" in the UK.

Surely you would agree there is a rational discussion to have about Global Warming? Not all statement made about it are false narratives.

And certainly crops grow faster in higher levels of CO2.

These statements are not "potentially" accurate, they are accurate. CO2 at the levels we have now in the atmosphere are not directly a danger to human health. The levels of CO2 in a closed room are typically 2 times higher than those in the atmosphere. What CO2 does in the atmosphere iscomplicated.

I cannot say anything about his career in general, but do you really believe the phrases in the headline you quote are incorrect?

In all this, I have rather wondered why Yvette Cooper is never mentioned. She was once a candidate. Did she give up interest?

Which character do you conclude is the most likely candidate? From the article I understood it would have been Andy Burnham if he was elected MP, but there is nobody else. So is Starmer safe for a while?