FaceDeer

They're chasing profit too, though. "Taking a stand" means they're advertising, trying to differentiate themselves from their competitors and draw in people who hold anti-AI views.

That will last until that segment of users becomes too small to be worth trying to base their business on.

I think it's generally pointless, spiteful, and only harms ordinary users who might someday have found value in coming across your old posts on Reddit from a search. It doesn't harm Reddit itself, the "value" of your individual account is very small compared to their vast archive. And they still have it, deletion just removes it from the public-facing front end. If the reason you're deleting it is because you don't want AI to be trained on it, that ship has long ago sailed. There are downloadable archives of Reddit floating around that it will never be deleted from.

So I wouldn't bother.

Seemed pretty fair and fact-based to me. What bias are you seeing?

So, are the people saying "Trump is fine..." lying through their teeth? Maybe they should swap him for a different candidate, like Biden?

Yes, that would also be statistical correlations to an AI model. The specific kind of information they're being trained on doesn't affect the underlying mechanism of model training.

Accountable for doing statistical analysis?

That's not what they're arguing, not even close.

Well, they are. Is the term "stochastic parrot" no longer popular? That's what the "stochastic" part means.

Nah, a lich is a wizard who returns to life by binding his soul to a phylactery. Jesus was a cleric, so he came back as a mummy lord.

Decay turns carbon into carbon dioxide, a gas. Unless it's injected into deep geological structures it doesn't stay underground.

Roots rot too. Otherwise the ground underneath forests would have hundreds of meters of accumulated root mass built up over the millennia.

No, by this logic one just needs to take into account how long is required before you consider something "sequestration." Ocean sediment, for example, stays down there for hundreds of millions of years before subduction and vulcanism might bring the carbon back up. So it's not permanent but it's certainly permanent enough.

Trees last for a couple of decades. And once a forest is established they turn over continuously, so the forest as a whole emits as much carbon as it takes in. As we see here with the boreal forests in the article, the carbon comes back out into the atmosphere quite easily. I personally wouldn't consider it a very good "sequestration" method.

If you really want to use trees for carbon sequestration, a good approach might be setting up big tree farms and then sinking the harvested wood into anoxic lakes. That'd take the carbon out of circulation for a long enough time that future generations can figure out what to do with it afterward.