Well yes, I guess you omitted the part of my post that talked about that. You wouldn't want to be under the impact sites. Not sure how recovery really matters too much. Recover from an uninhabited dust bowl? Um, no "The problem?" There's no problem from my side. Seems you have the problem.
No, you avoided it. One can not just "terraform" a planet. Just like on Earth, it is a complex chain where one layer builds upon the one before it. But is OK, I have been hearing things like this for decades. Kind of like those that propose that plugging up the mouth of a volcano will prevent it from erupting. Some people simply have a comprehension about science that are incredibly shallow. And believe in fantastical things simply because they want to believe in them with no actual basis in fact. Oh, and to get an idea, you might want to read up on the "Late Heavy Bombardment" period. As far as "recovery"? How about from the massive amounts of dust and debris that are going to be kicked up? Which on our own planet lingered in the atmosphere for years and decades after only a single impact. Oh, and here is a fun thing about Mars you do not seem to have thought about. The average temperatures are already -65c. Throw up massive amounts of dust, and you can lower that significantly. And once you hit -78.5, the carbon dioxide is going to subliminate out of the atmosphere into ice. After all, that is what the polar ice caps on Mars are made out of, you know this, right? It's not frozen water, they are literally polar ice caps made out of carbon dioxide. This is going to lower your atmospheric pressure even more. I think mostly I am laughing because you have this super simplistic concept of what "terraforming" is, and are believing things from science fiction that are multiple decades out of date. Primarily because of discoveries about our own planet in the last six decades or so. And I am finding it hilarious that you and AI believe it can be done, when everybody else that has looked into it seriously in the past half a century has dismissed it. That should be outright screaming how bad AI is.
You're a difficult person to debate with because you don't want to debate the points. You cull and cut and change. Back to your original post. AI certainly is trained. And very thoroughly. It's not a static system. That was demonstrated. And while it might not have consciousness in terms of analytical intelligence (sequences of calculations, analysis) it certainly demonstrates it. It has the equivalent of neural networks, albeit static ones. And it's actually right much of, if not most of the time. I've seen some pretty hilarious areas but it seems to be getting more accurate. And yes sometimes it gives you what you want and lies. These are part of the growing pains! But if you want to cherry pick memes and pretend it just regurgitates nonsense you're welcome to. You're talking about Eliza. Assume then that you're of the older generation? Retired in your 70s?
I addressed that point and you omitted it maybe you just wanted to feel superior? I ran a couple of models and accounting for non-optimistic factors, which include increased exospheric extent, lighter atmospheric composition, heightened solar activity, non-linear scaling effects, and upper-atmosphere heating, the loss rate could scale from 2.25 kg/s to ~270 kg/s in a realistic pessimistic scenario, a ~120x increase from the original estimate. It was just a fun exercise. How to get the pressure up so that a human being can use a mask not a suit - that's the main purpose of the intellectual exploration. Ok. Lol Do my eyes deceive me? Is this a tentative offering of a debate? I'm excited. I'll take it.... It's not a bad point. Major impacts like Chicxulub (~66 million years ago, 10–15 km radius asteroid) ejected billions of tons of dust, soot, and sulfates, triggering global cooling. This lasted for decades. My answer would be without referring to AI, (lol) what about the massive amount of dust that are already kicked up when there's a planet wide sandstorm? It seems to settle fine. That's because the atmospheric pressure is vastly lower than Earth. Dust settles much more quickly. At 6 hPa, it settles in days (local haze). And Mars’ low gravity and no stratosphere could (potentially) mean less global spread than Earth. Valid but overstated. May I correct you? Seasonal caps are CO₂ ice but permanent north cap is mostly H₂O (10¹⁵ kg worth), south has ~10–20% CO₂. I guess I could patronizingly dig at you like some people love to do on this site. I've been victim of that in this thread already a few times. But I'm looking for fun debate partners on how to terraform Mars! Not score hit points... Oh I led ai down that path. It was all my idea. My little sidekick did the math for me and pulled stuff off the internet. Tremendous fun too. I explored perchlorates issue, growing lichen, greenhouses, and taking advantage of natural basins. Did you know that there are areas, lowlands, where the pressure is significantly higher. Did you know that there are some places in summer where temperature can get up to 20° C and higher in the middle of the day? As you rightly pointed out it's a multi-layered multifaceted concept. Played with all of that. Tremendous fun. And many other aspects. You know like when you're a kid, You have an idea and you won't take no for an answer.
Interesting response. Lol. Stated in a way that is hard to argue against because you are too smart and open minded to make an absolute or closed opinion statement. I can't remember you doing that lol i n responses. So I like your kind of answer. Its pretty hard to challenge. Its specific and not general and in its context is logical. Stop that. Say something close minded without logic so I can yell at you. Lol. Now look I am 69. You playfully referenced that age group in a way I think might be true er at l east for me. I grew up believing you can never trust absolute authority or anything man made and seriously Melb my distrust would be summarized with the lessons of the Wizard fo Oz and Nuremberg as you probably know of many in my generation brought up on Nixon, Hitler, McCarthy, Stalin, etc. No I will never feel safe with AI. I do not think it will end up with a turn off switch as it evolves and it will become impossible to control and will eventually control humans. Yah yah Keanu Reaves stuff but I am deadly fearful of AI. Maybe I admit much of it is based on misconceptions as most fears can often be but its also based on my belief that anything a human creates has imperfections never intended to have been created or anticipated and so comes back to haunt us. Take AI in mobile units. I could see it working to a point yes of course. It is one thing to move people to cut back on air pollution and congestion yes. However there is a fine line as you know between civilian positive uses and military and killing uses. The same science we should be using to cherish life we use to wipe out life. Excuse my skepticism but oh man its a pain in my cynical bum bum. Do you probably knowing far more about AI then I fear it being misused? p.s. some of us like me should use a damn bike and get off our bum bums
And now Tesla's Autopilot is scaring the crap out of drivers. https://www.autoblog.com/news/teslas-phantom-braking-lawsuit Go figure.
ChatGPT tries to turn itself in? https://gizmodo.com/chatgpt-tells-u...t-is-trying-to-break-people-report-2000615600
