They could have just put the period after 'chalked it up'.

Pointing out that something is incorrect definitely isn't sufficient - the *culture* of "it is bad to make incorrect statements, good to promptly and clearly retract and apologize for them, and disqualifying to keep making them deliberately" is the framework needed for fact-checking to plug into.

It's not one thing!

Stop saying 'AI' when you mean chatbots or machine learning which are not the same thing.

The alleged benefit is eliminating jobs, so...

Where are you getting that overall generation increased?

You can kind of tell how much it is by comparing the drop in gas with the rise in solar. Looks like temps account for a bit less than half of it.

Well, we already knew you're an evil man.

Don't give them ideas?

It's a lot like if people looked at Edison's first practical lightbulb and said "It's a new Sun!" because the Sun was only other thing they'd ever seen emit full spectrum visible electromagnetic radiation.

You posted this quote as a dunk, right?

can’t help but notice it’s ‘they’ when a single mother might manage to use SNAP benefits for food that actually tastes good but it’s ‘we’ when a handful of ketamine addicts wanna ruin the economy

Did Congress appropriate money for this?

💯

Counterpoint on the 2nd point: environmental harm from farming can be justified by people's need to eat. Environmental harm from chatbots can be justified by nothing at all. So it's not exactly a valid comparison.

The definition given is simply wealth per capita as compared to average, nothing to do with tax policy per se.