Eneasz Brodsky

It was a really good essay.

Yeah.

I mean, but I don't know if there's much of a point in pointing them at the post because like you said, when it was pointed out that the water estimation usage was off by 1,000 times, like many orders of magnitude, well, three orders of magnitude off from what the actual usage is, the article just changed one number and didn't change any words and nobody cared because like it's not about the water.

Yeah, no, he... So if you could point out that it doesn't use that much water at all, people would be like, okay, and nothing about the position would change.

If you were pro AI, then it would be probably in your benefit to make sure people keep repeating the water argument because it's really dumb.

And the more people repeat it, the more, you know, once everybody knows how dumb and bad it is, the more they're going to look wrong and people will update away from them.

Me neither.

I meant in terms of if you're one of those EAC people, which neither of us are.

Right.

Yeah.

That too.

Yeah.

Okay.

I got a question.

All right.

We've been not... I just looked over at the timer.

We're 31 minutes in and have not yet hit the main topic.

And I feel like we were really all jazzed up to get into it.

And I was like, wait, wait, wait, no, no, no.

Let's hit the feedback first.