| AI 08:01 - Jun 10 with 3464 views | DJR |
Following on from Sam Coates' revelation that ChatGPT was completely mispresenting one of his podcasts, this seems a rather worrying finding.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/09/apple-artificial-intelligence
We appear to be rushing headlong into AI without really knowing whether it is wise or whether there are adequate safeguards in place. We also seem to be cavalier about its impact on things like jobs. And we seem completely dismissive of concerns about the vast amounts of energy and land needed for data centres. [Post edited 10 Jun 8:06]
|  | | |  |
| AI on 08:10 - Jun 10 with 2229 views | Herbivore |
I really can't get on board with the enthusiasm for AI. First off, the energy and water consumption that generative AI uses is eye-watering. I know it's not the only thing that's energy and water intensive, but when the climate is already on its knees, should we really be mass rolling out yet another technology that is so damaging? Second, as it stands AI is mostly not very good. It gets a lot wrong and it writes horribly. I'm sure the tech will improve but right now it's so prone to basic errors as to be not fit for purpose. Third, there's the massive social impact. AI will replace people's jobs and those who have jobs will mainly be feeding prompts to AI - sounds like a lot of fun, that! Then there's the issue of deep fake images and videos, that it relies on mining information and some of that information is copyrighted (another ethical issue) or may itself be inaccurate. The Internet isn't exactly an infallible single point of truth on most issues. Plus, people have already been dumbed down over the years and lack critical thinking skills, technology that encourages people to think even less is not a good thing.
We can't put the genie back in the bottle entirely and doubtless AI does have some uses and will get better as the tech develops. But I'm not sure it should be used widely in most industries at this point, let alone by Joe Public. We've already seen people laying waste to half a rainforest by asking Chat GPT to make them into an action figure or asking it who Ipswich's worst loan signing is. People can't be trusted to use tech in a responsible way and the tech as it stands in encourages use that is not responsible. [Post edited 10 Jun 8:17]
|  |
| |
| AI on 08:33 - Jun 10 with 2109 views | Kievthegreat |
Great example from the weekend of useless AI. I was when googling whether Shenfield and Brentwood were in ULEZ. Google AI proudly asserted Shenfield was in the ULEZ zone, but that Brentwood wasn't, so my Sister-in-law was ready to drive to Brentwood and get a train from there instead. However of course Shenfield isn't in the ULEZ because it's further out than Brentwood!
Big problem is that AI is being used to find answers, but it doesn't do so in a way of finding a logical statement with proof. It generates a statement based on probabilities and then justifies it's position. |  | | |
| AI on 08:34 - Jun 10 with 2112 views | Guthrum |
It's a known feature of "AI" that when it does not know/understand something, it just makes stuff up to fill the gaps.
People do the same thing sometimes, so perhaps it shouldn't be surprising. Their patterns are programmed by peopl, after all. The difference being that people might take conscious liberties with the facts, misremember or simply be mistaken. For "AI", it is oblivious to any falsehood. These new facts are established and as valid as any others, there is no niggling need to go back and double check.
The other danger is that people are already trating "AI" as some sort of hyper-intelligent fount of all knowlege, rather than a still flawed information compilation and rating system. |  |
| |
| AI on 08:41 - Jun 10 with 2058 views | EddyJ |
AI is going to be the biggest and scariest change to the way we live our lives, probably in the history of humanity. Think about the amount the world changed with the adoption of the internet between the late 90s and early 2010s. Now multiply that by a big number.
I'm not sure people who don't work in the industry realise quite how quickly its progressing and what AI is able to do now. Yes, its not currently as good as a human at most tasks. But extrapolate the rate of improvement and you will see a time in the not-too-distant future where it can replicate or better a human at most things.
If you are a knowledge worker (i.e. most white collar jobs), your job is going to be augmented, and possibly replaced by AI in the next 15 years. If you are a driver (the most common job on the planet), your job is going to be replaced by AI in the next 15 years. If you work with your hands, robotics and AI will probably augment or replace your role in the next 20-30 years.
There are typically three counter arguments to job losses.
1) There will be other jobs, jobs we cannot imagine today. Possibly. But we are talking about the biggest shift humanity has ever seen over such a short period of time. That is going to cause A LOT of upheaval.
2) If nobody has jobs, nobody will have money for things, so the capitalists won't allow it. This argument relies on the idea that capitalists act as a homogenous group who all act in the interests of the group as a whole, rather than themselves as individuals. We know this is not the case.
3) My job could never be done by an AI. Think again. |  | | |
| AI on 08:45 - Jun 10 with 2036 views | NthQldITFC |
It is and always has been blindingly obvious in a fundamental way, but the 'bling' aspect blinds our rational minds to any form of self control. Not saying I think there's any way out, but the inevitable denialism has been bovine in its stubbornness. |  |
| |
| AI on 08:59 - Jun 10 with 1949 views | bsw72 |
| AI on 08:10 - Jun 10 by Herbivore |
I really can't get on board with the enthusiasm for AI. First off, the energy and water consumption that generative AI uses is eye-watering. I know it's not the only thing that's energy and water intensive, but when the climate is already on its knees, should we really be mass rolling out yet another technology that is so damaging? Second, as it stands AI is mostly not very good. It gets a lot wrong and it writes horribly. I'm sure the tech will improve but right now it's so prone to basic errors as to be not fit for purpose. Third, there's the massive social impact. AI will replace people's jobs and those who have jobs will mainly be feeding prompts to AI - sounds like a lot of fun, that! Then there's the issue of deep fake images and videos, that it relies on mining information and some of that information is copyrighted (another ethical issue) or may itself be inaccurate. The Internet isn't exactly an infallible single point of truth on most issues. Plus, people have already been dumbed down over the years and lack critical thinking skills, technology that encourages people to think even less is not a good thing.
We can't put the genie back in the bottle entirely and doubtless AI does have some uses and will get better as the tech develops. But I'm not sure it should be used widely in most industries at this point, let alone by Joe Public. We've already seen people laying waste to half a rainforest by asking Chat GPT to make them into an action figure or asking it who Ipswich's worst loan signing is. People can't be trusted to use tech in a responsible way and the tech as it stands in encourages use that is not responsible. [Post edited 10 Jun 8:17]
|
AI is a tool and people need to learn how to use it. AI will not simply replace jobs, that is media hype, it will evolve work and more likely lead to upskilling in employees and therefore higher wages. That is based on a recent PwC report.
PwC’s 2025 Global AI Jobs Barometer (analyzed ~billion job advertisements across six continents) shows that rather than replacing jobs, AI is enhancing the value of employees and driving upskilling. AI is making employees more productive and enabling them to command higher wages even in roles that are considered highly automatable, suggesting that AI works alongside emplolyees rather than eliminating them.
It also shows that AI is creating new opportunities particularly for women, who are more likely to be employed in AI-exposed jobs.
As for the "AI gets a lot wrong and writes terribly", the effectiveness of AI greatly improves when users are skilled in crafting prompts and leveraging the technology. The more knowledgeable someone is about the capabilities and limitations of AI, the better they can adapt their requests for more accurate and meaningful responses.
It is the same with any tool or technology, the more skilled an individual is at using it, the better the output will be - no different to any other skilled worker.
I agree about the responsible use, but the same can be said about a lot of industries, however there is an argument that the demand for AI and associated power may actually accelerate evolution of greener energies.
I will add that we are talking about a technology in its infancy and so any data and associated analysis is limited, LLMs are really only a handful of years old, so we will have to see how it evolves. |  | | |
| AI on 09:07 - Jun 10 with 1903 views | blueasfook |
| AI on 08:59 - Jun 10 by bsw72 |
AI is a tool and people need to learn how to use it. AI will not simply replace jobs, that is media hype, it will evolve work and more likely lead to upskilling in employees and therefore higher wages. That is based on a recent PwC report.
PwC’s 2025 Global AI Jobs Barometer (analyzed ~billion job advertisements across six continents) shows that rather than replacing jobs, AI is enhancing the value of employees and driving upskilling. AI is making employees more productive and enabling them to command higher wages even in roles that are considered highly automatable, suggesting that AI works alongside emplolyees rather than eliminating them.
It also shows that AI is creating new opportunities particularly for women, who are more likely to be employed in AI-exposed jobs.
As for the "AI gets a lot wrong and writes terribly", the effectiveness of AI greatly improves when users are skilled in crafting prompts and leveraging the technology. The more knowledgeable someone is about the capabilities and limitations of AI, the better they can adapt their requests for more accurate and meaningful responses.
It is the same with any tool or technology, the more skilled an individual is at using it, the better the output will be - no different to any other skilled worker.
I agree about the responsible use, but the same can be said about a lot of industries, however there is an argument that the demand for AI and associated power may actually accelerate evolution of greener energies.
I will add that we are talking about a technology in its infancy and so any data and associated analysis is limited, LLMs are really only a handful of years old, so we will have to see how it evolves. |
Spot on. I already use it in my day to day job. It's been writing my TWTD posts for the last year or so. |  |
| |
| AI on 09:11 - Jun 10 with 1874 views | EddyJ |
| AI on 08:59 - Jun 10 by bsw72 |
AI is a tool and people need to learn how to use it. AI will not simply replace jobs, that is media hype, it will evolve work and more likely lead to upskilling in employees and therefore higher wages. That is based on a recent PwC report.
PwC’s 2025 Global AI Jobs Barometer (analyzed ~billion job advertisements across six continents) shows that rather than replacing jobs, AI is enhancing the value of employees and driving upskilling. AI is making employees more productive and enabling them to command higher wages even in roles that are considered highly automatable, suggesting that AI works alongside emplolyees rather than eliminating them.
It also shows that AI is creating new opportunities particularly for women, who are more likely to be employed in AI-exposed jobs.
As for the "AI gets a lot wrong and writes terribly", the effectiveness of AI greatly improves when users are skilled in crafting prompts and leveraging the technology. The more knowledgeable someone is about the capabilities and limitations of AI, the better they can adapt their requests for more accurate and meaningful responses.
It is the same with any tool or technology, the more skilled an individual is at using it, the better the output will be - no different to any other skilled worker.
I agree about the responsible use, but the same can be said about a lot of industries, however there is an argument that the demand for AI and associated power may actually accelerate evolution of greener energies.
I will add that we are talking about a technology in its infancy and so any data and associated analysis is limited, LLMs are really only a handful of years old, so we will have to see how it evolves. |
There are around 500,000 professional drivers in the UK. Lorry drivers, taxi drivers, delivery drivers etc...
When viable self driving vehicles come along in the next few years, do you think that number is going to go up, down or stay the same? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| AI on 09:16 - Jun 10 with 1842 views | blue_curacao |
Will AI eat itself? i.e. will the AI models collapse because they end up in a loop of consuming ever increasing amounts of AI generated data?
I have asked this question of several people who know a lot more about AI than myself and have been told it will not happen because there are ways to avoid it but, to be honest, I've not heard a convincing explanation that I fully understand. Can anyone enlighten me? | | | |
| AI on 09:22 - Jun 10 with 1804 views | EddyJ |
| AI on 09:16 - Jun 10 by blue_curacao |
Will AI eat itself? i.e. will the AI models collapse because they end up in a loop of consuming ever increasing amounts of AI generated data?
I have asked this question of several people who know a lot more about AI than myself and have been told it will not happen because there are ways to avoid it but, to be honest, I've not heard a convincing explanation that I fully understand. Can anyone enlighten me? |
I don't know about eating itself, but I am already seeing situations where both sides of a conversation have been replaced by AI without the other side knowing - ending up with a loop of nonsense conversation.
e.g. I need to give a project status update. My project management tool has a button to generate wordy status update using gen AI. My boss gets a load of wordy updates and doesn't have time to read them. So he uses gen AI to summarise them. etc... etc... Ultimately, no human ever reads the update. Its just AIs creating text to be consumed by other AIs. | | | |
| AI on 09:28 - Jun 10 with 1748 views | positivity |
thanks, that's a really useful tip, done! | |
| |
| AI on 09:29 - Jun 10 with 1746 views | thebooks |
There are loads of these examples.
It would help if it wasn’t framed as “intelligence”, but then of course we wouldn’t have it shoved down our throats every day of our life.
It’s a big token analysing/generation machine. That has uses, especially on limited, well-structured data sets, but the way it confidently states its outputs as truths (and as “intelligence”) is what’s dangerous, not that it’ll achieve some sort of supra-intelligence.
At the end of the day it’s also being pushed by a bunch fascists like Musk, Trump, Altman and Thiel, so we should just resist it anyway. |  | | |
| AI on 09:31 - Jun 10 with 1725 views | thebooks |
| AI on 08:59 - Jun 10 by bsw72 |
AI is a tool and people need to learn how to use it. AI will not simply replace jobs, that is media hype, it will evolve work and more likely lead to upskilling in employees and therefore higher wages. That is based on a recent PwC report.
PwC’s 2025 Global AI Jobs Barometer (analyzed ~billion job advertisements across six continents) shows that rather than replacing jobs, AI is enhancing the value of employees and driving upskilling. AI is making employees more productive and enabling them to command higher wages even in roles that are considered highly automatable, suggesting that AI works alongside emplolyees rather than eliminating them.
It also shows that AI is creating new opportunities particularly for women, who are more likely to be employed in AI-exposed jobs.
As for the "AI gets a lot wrong and writes terribly", the effectiveness of AI greatly improves when users are skilled in crafting prompts and leveraging the technology. The more knowledgeable someone is about the capabilities and limitations of AI, the better they can adapt their requests for more accurate and meaningful responses.
It is the same with any tool or technology, the more skilled an individual is at using it, the better the output will be - no different to any other skilled worker.
I agree about the responsible use, but the same can be said about a lot of industries, however there is an argument that the demand for AI and associated power may actually accelerate evolution of greener energies.
I will add that we are talking about a technology in its infancy and so any data and associated analysis is limited, LLMs are really only a handful of years old, so we will have to see how it evolves. |
I see, it’s not the program, it’s that we’re not prompting it correctly.
Always the promise of some huge breakthrough as well… | | | |
| AI on 09:43 - Jun 10 with 1650 views | Guthrum |
| AI on 09:29 - Jun 10 by thebooks |
There are loads of these examples.
It would help if it wasn’t framed as “intelligence”, but then of course we wouldn’t have it shoved down our throats every day of our life.
It’s a big token analysing/generation machine. That has uses, especially on limited, well-structured data sets, but the way it confidently states its outputs as truths (and as “intelligence”) is what’s dangerous, not that it’ll achieve some sort of supra-intelligence.
At the end of the day it’s also being pushed by a bunch fascists like Musk, Trump, Altman and Thiel, so we should just resist it anyway. |
They're in favour because it might mean employing fewer people, the latter being expensive and having issues like independent will.
Or at least using that as a threat to suppress worker rights.
They don't really care that over-trust in technology can lead to cock-ups. They are already wealthy and hope to be retired/deceased before the merde hits the ventilateur. | |
| |
| AI on 10:17 - Jun 10 with 1548 views | bsw72 |
| AI on 09:11 - Jun 10 by EddyJ |
There are around 500,000 professional drivers in the UK. Lorry drivers, taxi drivers, delivery drivers etc...
When viable self driving vehicles come along in the next few years, do you think that number is going to go up, down or stay the same? |
I'm not saying existing jobs will not disappear, I am saying jobs and skills evolve. I would also suggest that there are closer to 1M drivers in the UK, approx 380K "private hire" and a further 650K HGV . . . .
While AI may reduce a number of traditional driving jobs, it is also likely to transform industry. Drivers always adapt to new technologies and in this case such as operating semi-autonomous vehicles or using AI-driven logistics platforms.
This shift could lead to a demand for upskilling and reskilling, as drivers learn to work alongside AI systems and leverage technology to enhance their productivity.
Biggest risk is probably to taxi drivers (as already seen in San Fran) while anything involving delivery will have a requirement on loading / unloading - and the ability to negotiate these end point activities - expect to see less human driving but manual work still required.
Changes in technology have always driven wider social and employment changes . . . a local example like Lavenham was probably the richest town in England 600 years ago built on the wool industry which was the backbone of the English economy.
This drove associated industries such as farmers, shepherds, weavers and merchants - industrial revolution drove major changes, then look at how technology has changed farming and manufacturing as well . . . it's what humans do, rightly or wrongly. | | | |
| AI on 10:23 - Jun 10 with 1513 views | bsw72 |
| AI on 09:43 - Jun 10 by Guthrum |
They're in favour because it might mean employing fewer people, the latter being expensive and having issues like independent will.
Or at least using that as a threat to suppress worker rights.
They don't really care that over-trust in technology can lead to cock-ups. They are already wealthy and hope to be retired/deceased before the merde hits the ventilateur. |
"Might mean employing less people. . . . "
People have been saying this about technology for years, yet we have had autopilot functionality in commercial jets which are capable of taking off, flying and landing since the 60s, yet all still have a pilot and copilot. | | | |
| AI on 10:29 - Jun 10 with 1490 views | EddyJ |
| AI on 10:17 - Jun 10 by bsw72 |
I'm not saying existing jobs will not disappear, I am saying jobs and skills evolve. I would also suggest that there are closer to 1M drivers in the UK, approx 380K "private hire" and a further 650K HGV . . . .
While AI may reduce a number of traditional driving jobs, it is also likely to transform industry. Drivers always adapt to new technologies and in this case such as operating semi-autonomous vehicles or using AI-driven logistics platforms.
This shift could lead to a demand for upskilling and reskilling, as drivers learn to work alongside AI systems and leverage technology to enhance their productivity.
Biggest risk is probably to taxi drivers (as already seen in San Fran) while anything involving delivery will have a requirement on loading / unloading - and the ability to negotiate these end point activities - expect to see less human driving but manual work still required.
Changes in technology have always driven wider social and employment changes . . . a local example like Lavenham was probably the richest town in England 600 years ago built on the wool industry which was the backbone of the English economy.
This drove associated industries such as farmers, shepherds, weavers and merchants - industrial revolution drove major changes, then look at how technology has changed farming and manufacturing as well . . . it's what humans do, rightly or wrongly. |
So say those 1M drivers are reduced to 200k. As you say, we still need some drivers, particularly where loading and unloading is required. In another decade, the loading an unloading will mainly be done by robots, drones etc... So another chunk of jobs will go then.
Tools are coming along that can do the work of junior software engineers. So lets say there is a 50% reduction in the number of software engineering jobs.
We might not need GPs anymore, only specialist doctors. GPs are essentially gatekeepers to the specialists and their job is relatively easy to automate. So there is a reduction in the number of doctors required.
AIs are already very good at replicating the work of lawyers. Lets half the number of them required.
Artists, writers, pretty much any creative industry. They are going to be decimated. Hollywood films will use AI for most of their special effects.
You can go through most industries and see the same pattern.
Yes, there will be some new jobs created. But not on anywhere near the same scale as the rate they are being lost.
What AI does is consolidate the wealth of those who own the AI and remove employment from those who don't. This will further the wealth gap between the haves and have-nots. And its silly. What AI should do is enable people to work less whilst enjoying a similar or better lifestyle. But that is not the direction capitalism is taking us in. [Post edited 10 Jun 10:29]
| | | |
| AI on 10:53 - Jun 10 with 1420 views | DJR |
| AI on 08:59 - Jun 10 by bsw72 |
AI is a tool and people need to learn how to use it. AI will not simply replace jobs, that is media hype, it will evolve work and more likely lead to upskilling in employees and therefore higher wages. That is based on a recent PwC report.
PwC’s 2025 Global AI Jobs Barometer (analyzed ~billion job advertisements across six continents) shows that rather than replacing jobs, AI is enhancing the value of employees and driving upskilling. AI is making employees more productive and enabling them to command higher wages even in roles that are considered highly automatable, suggesting that AI works alongside emplolyees rather than eliminating them.
It also shows that AI is creating new opportunities particularly for women, who are more likely to be employed in AI-exposed jobs.
As for the "AI gets a lot wrong and writes terribly", the effectiveness of AI greatly improves when users are skilled in crafting prompts and leveraging the technology. The more knowledgeable someone is about the capabilities and limitations of AI, the better they can adapt their requests for more accurate and meaningful responses.
It is the same with any tool or technology, the more skilled an individual is at using it, the better the output will be - no different to any other skilled worker.
I agree about the responsible use, but the same can be said about a lot of industries, however there is an argument that the demand for AI and associated power may actually accelerate evolution of greener energies.
I will add that we are talking about a technology in its infancy and so any data and associated analysis is limited, LLMs are really only a handful of years old, so we will have to see how it evolves. |
If Mandy Rice-Davies were still alive, perhaps she would say of the PwC report "well they would say that, wouldn't they?".
From what you say of the report, it appears to focus on job advertisements, and presumably doesn't look at jobs that no longer or might in the future no longer exist.
On the Today Programme today, someone mentioned that AI will do away with many jobs involving code-writing. And there are concerns in the architects' profession that AI will reduce the need for as many architects.
No doubt those that remain will benefit in the way you suggest but the development of AI appears to be carrying on a pattern that has been going on since the early 80s, namely, the replacement of high paid jobs (eg. manufacturing, mining) and their replacement with low-paid jobs with little prospects.
To a large extent, I think this has driven support for Trump and Brexit in communities whose income has stagnated or even fallen over the last few decades. And I am not sure AI will help such people, given the 700,000 jobs currently available largely rely on skills and experience that many not in work just don't have.
At the end of the day, we seem to be heading in a direction where many people (including many younger people) miss out, and portion of the population accumulates much of the income and wealth.
EDIT: I have just seen this on the Guardian, but the rationale for benefit cuts seems to me totally misconceived because many of the people concerned won't have the skills for the 700,000 jobs I mentioned.
"Reeves is now taking questions.
The first comes from a delegate who says the proposed welfare cuts are wrong. Will the government think again?
Reeves says the last government did not do nearly enough to support people back into work. The government is going to invest £1bn in this, she says. She says it wants to get people off sickness and disability benefits into work." [Post edited 10 Jun 11:05]
| | | |
| AI on 10:53 - Jun 10 with 1420 views | Herbivore |
| AI on 10:17 - Jun 10 by bsw72 |
I'm not saying existing jobs will not disappear, I am saying jobs and skills evolve. I would also suggest that there are closer to 1M drivers in the UK, approx 380K "private hire" and a further 650K HGV . . . .
While AI may reduce a number of traditional driving jobs, it is also likely to transform industry. Drivers always adapt to new technologies and in this case such as operating semi-autonomous vehicles or using AI-driven logistics platforms.
This shift could lead to a demand for upskilling and reskilling, as drivers learn to work alongside AI systems and leverage technology to enhance their productivity.
Biggest risk is probably to taxi drivers (as already seen in San Fran) while anything involving delivery will have a requirement on loading / unloading - and the ability to negotiate these end point activities - expect to see less human driving but manual work still required.
Changes in technology have always driven wider social and employment changes . . . a local example like Lavenham was probably the richest town in England 600 years ago built on the wool industry which was the backbone of the English economy.
This drove associated industries such as farmers, shepherds, weavers and merchants - industrial revolution drove major changes, then look at how technology has changed farming and manufacturing as well . . . it's what humans do, rightly or wrongly. |
Brought to you by Chat GPT. | |
| |
| AI on 11:14 - Jun 10 with 1323 views | Bluecoin |
| AI on 10:29 - Jun 10 by EddyJ |
So say those 1M drivers are reduced to 200k. As you say, we still need some drivers, particularly where loading and unloading is required. In another decade, the loading an unloading will mainly be done by robots, drones etc... So another chunk of jobs will go then.
Tools are coming along that can do the work of junior software engineers. So lets say there is a 50% reduction in the number of software engineering jobs.
We might not need GPs anymore, only specialist doctors. GPs are essentially gatekeepers to the specialists and their job is relatively easy to automate. So there is a reduction in the number of doctors required.
AIs are already very good at replicating the work of lawyers. Lets half the number of them required.
Artists, writers, pretty much any creative industry. They are going to be decimated. Hollywood films will use AI for most of their special effects.
You can go through most industries and see the same pattern.
Yes, there will be some new jobs created. But not on anywhere near the same scale as the rate they are being lost.
What AI does is consolidate the wealth of those who own the AI and remove employment from those who don't. This will further the wealth gap between the haves and have-nots. And its silly. What AI should do is enable people to work less whilst enjoying a similar or better lifestyle. But that is not the direction capitalism is taking us in. [Post edited 10 Jun 10:29]
|
With the rise of vibe coding, the need for human software devs will be far less.
If any young person is thinking of getting into software development, there is probably no job for you in a few years. Think again.
Same for any creative job. You're done! |  | | |
| AI on 11:23 - Jun 10 with 1270 views | Herbivore |
| AI on 11:14 - Jun 10 by Bluecoin |
With the rise of vibe coding, the need for human software devs will be far less.
If any young person is thinking of getting into software development, there is probably no job for you in a few years. Think again.
Same for any creative job. You're done! |
Yay! What a future we've got in store! | |
| |
| AI on 11:25 - Jun 10 with 1256 views | EddyJ |
| AI on 11:23 - Jun 10 by Herbivore |
Yay! What a future we've got in store! |
People have been noisily arguing about the impact of Brexit, austerity, even global warming. But we are sleepwalking into the change which is going to have the most profound effect on humanity. | | | |
| AI on 11:27 - Jun 10 with 1234 views | Bluecoin |
| AI on 11:23 - Jun 10 by Herbivore |
Yay! What a future we've got in store! |
Don't worry, might not impact the people who spent all their time arguing with strangers on Football Forums! You're in the clear! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
