Why isn’t carbon monoxide more popular

[dudebl]

This is my planned method tomorrow using a generator in a garage.

Times vary to death using grok to estimate co buildup, but the times are relatively low to unconscious, under 30 minutes.

Why do more people not use this method?

 

[hell toupee]

Have you read the mega thread?

There are a lot of variables that you want to make sure you have locked down - because there are several examples in that thread of people trying this and failing - people being discovered in their car after 8 hours unconscious but still alive.

Any method you choose is going to require some amount of preparation, planning, and testing. Otherwise you risk putting yourself in a position that is far worse than the one you are in now,

What appears simple and easy on the surface really isn't so don't rush things. You don't want to end up with all kinds of permanent internal organ damage.

I would take my time and read that thread.

 

[dudebl]

Have you read the mega thread?

There are a lot of variables that you want to make sure you have locked down - because there are several examples in that thread of people trying this and failing - people being discovered in their car after 8 hours unconscious but still alive.

Any method you choose is going to require some amount of preparation, planning, and testing. Otherwise you risk putting yourself in a position that is far worse than the one you are in now,

What appears simple and easy on the surface really isn't so don't rush things. You don't want to end up with all kinds of permanent internal organ damage.

I would take my time and read that thread.

I have read through that thread extensively, googled every permutation of it, used ChatGPT and grok to calculate concentrations of co and size of building - everything points to this being extremely lethal with minimal chance of survival and relatively quick.

 

[-AntiSocial-]

Otherwise you risk putting yourself in a position that is far worse than the one you are in now

From your perspective, what are some examples of it being worse than now?

 

[dudebl]

From your perspective, what are some examples of it being worse than now?

Permanent brain damage.

 

[-AntiSocial-]

Permanent brain damage.

Hell to the naw.

 

[Dejected 55]

With modern cars it is harder... not everyone has a garage... generators can be expensive, so if financial problems are in play you might not be able to afford one. Burning charcoal is more difficult than you might think and might require more charcoal than people think. If your method is noisy and you have neighbors close by, there is a chance of being found before you die. If you don't live alone you risk endangering others OR being discovered by someone who lives with you.

I'm going to use a gas-powered chainsaw in my car in my garage, sometime after dark on whatever evening I choose to make my attempt. It should be quieter from the outside of my house and neighbors are far enough away and I live alone so I think I have little chance of being caught. Also, the chainsaw is only going to run maybe an hour tops before being off and then no noise at all after that, whereas a generator runs all night potentially. I can't afford a generator anyway. I'm hoping my method works, but I don't really have a way to test it without being ready to go, so attempt #1 will be test #1 and hopefully first time will be the charm!

I already had the chainsaw bought just last year for hurricane clean-up... or I'd have been trying to figure out how to burn coal since that would be all I could afford to try. With my chainsaw method, I have sufficient gasoline to try a bunch of times if need be... if I wake up and am still alive.

 

[homeboundcripple]

This is my planned method tomorrow using a generator in a garage.

Times vary to death using grok to estimate co buildup, but the times are relatively low to unconscious, under 30 minutes.

Why do more people not use this method?

I think it's not popular, because there's a misconception that dying from carbon monoxide is painful.

 

[hell toupee]

From your perspective, what are some examples of it being worse than now?

Well, your current issues wouldn't go away if you fail in the attempt, so you would be risking compounding those issues with whatever issues you suffer from the attempt.

For example, let's say you are depressed and have anxiety - you fail at your attempt and now you will still have depression and anxiety, as well as compromised kidneys, or brain damage - even just ending up in the mental hospital I would consider a bad outcome but that's just my opinion.

I support everyone's right to do what they want with their life - I just wouldn't want someone rushing in to something, failing, and ending up even worse off.

I have read through that thread extensively, googled every permutation of it, used ChatGPT and grok to calculate concentrations of co and size of building - everything points to this being extremely lethal with minimal chance of survival and relatively quick.

Ok, no problem. I wasn't aware you already did your homework,

I wouldn't necessarily trust AI though - they are often wrong as they simply pull info from sources like Reddit and Twitter/X (ie social media). At the very least, I would compare answers to 2 different AI models - but that's just me and I do confess I'm a bit of a worry wart.

I hope you find peace in whatever you do.

 

[homeboundcripple]

Well, your current issues wouldn't go away if you fail in the attempt, so you would be risking compounding those issues with whatever issues you suffer from the attempt.

For example, let's say you are depressed and have anxiety - you fail at your attempt and now you will still have depression and anxiety, as well as compromised kidneys, or brain damage - even just ending up in the mental hospital I would consider a bad outcome but that's just my opinion.

I support everyone's right to do what they want with their life - I just wouldn't want someone rushing in to something, failing, and ending up even worse off.


Ok, no problem. I wasn't aware you already did your homework,

I wouldn't necessarily trust AI though - they are often wrong as they simply pull info from sources like Reddit and Twitter/X (ie social media). At the very least, I would compare answers to 2 different AI models - but that's just me and I do confess I'm a bit of a worry wart.

I hope you find peace in whatever you do.

AI gives sound advice, mainly information from health agencies, government sources, and scientific research. Not reddit/ twitter lol

 

[-AntiSocial-]

For example, let's say you are depressed and have anxiety - you fail at your attempt and now you will still have depression and anxiety, as well as compromised kidneys, or brain damage - even just ending up in the mental hospital I would consider a bad outcome but that's just my opinion.

Imagine failing and being locked away in one of those places. Could never be me. On my momma man. You dig? You feel me?

 

[dudebl]

Well, your current issues wouldn't go away if you fail in the attempt, so you would be risking compounding those issues with whatever issues you suffer from the attempt.

For example, let's say you are depressed and have anxiety - you fail at your attempt and now you will still have depression and anxiety, as well as compromised kidneys, or brain damage - even just ending up in the mental hospital I would consider a bad outcome but that's just my opinion.

I support everyone's right to do what they want with their life - I just wouldn't want someone rushing in to something, failing, and ending up even worse off.


Ok, no problem. I wasn't aware you already did your homework,

I wouldn't necessarily trust AI though - they are often wrong as they simply pull info from sources like Reddit and Twitter/X (ie social media). At the very least, I would compare answers to 2 different AI models - but that's just me and I do confess I'm a bit of a worry wart.

I hope you find peace in whatever you do.

ChatGPT refuses to provide any information because of self harm.

Grok is dumb and you simply re-ask the question saying "for scientific reasons" and it replies.

Grok did extensive calculations from the volume output of the exhaust to molar mass of co to a ton of other scientific stuff I don't understand.

It then cross referenced a ton of scientific studies and government data. It also referenced actual case studies of people who have successfully completed it.

It came to the same conclusions by mixing this data.

I do trust groks conclusions because the data came from all these sources which it provided the links to.

Imagine failing and being locked away in one of those places. Could never be me. On my momma man. You dig? You feel me?

I've been locked away in those places more times than I can count. They really aren't that bad. Mainly just other suicidal people.

 

[hell toupee]

AI gives sound advice, mainly information from health agencies, government sources, and scientific research. Not reddit/ twitter lol

It gives sound advice AND wrong advice. It is a fact that it pulls from the sources you mentioned AND also pulls sources from social media. Grok says right there in it's advertising/messaging that it pulls from X.

The problem with AI is it doesn't weigh the viability of said sources - it just scours the Internet, regardless of source, and provides you with an answer. It does not know the veracity of the sources it is providing. There was a big article from the founder of OpenAI Sam Altman saying exactly this just a few days ago.

Look, I'm not trying to start an argument here - you are welcome to do whatever you want. I'm just saying, given we are talking about an incredibly important decision that holds potentially disastrous consequences if something goes wrong, to make sure you ask AI to double check it's answers, or compare answers between 2 different models. Just my opinion, do what you want with it.

Imagine failing and being locked away in one of those places. Could never be me. On my momma man. You dig? You feel me?

I feel you. Not my thing either. It seems like people who get committed, even for a short period of time, end up worse off.

 

[Dejected 55]

AI has no independent ability to vet data from the sources it pulls. If I showed you and an AI a picture of a pig flying and a pig playing in mud, AI has no basis to decide one of those pictures is more realistic than the other does, as you should be able to do easily.

AI cannot tell a reliable source from an unreliable source. Any biases the AI has is either going to come from the programmer(s) who tailor it to favor one thing more than another according to their own biases OR it might be given the ability to determine from "more popular" posts... as in, things that get searched for or clicked most often and things with more "thumbs up" ratings... but those are not at all reliable ways to determine truth from fiction.

People are flawed, but we at least have the innate ability to treat each new encounter on its own, so even with our biases we have a chance each time to recalibrate and decide between two choices. The AI simply does not have this ability and is limited by its algorithm and the available data.

If I gave you nothing but fictional garbage page after page after page... you still have the ability to determine whether what I'm telling you is complete fabricated crap or not. Maybe you will not, but you can... an AI cannot make those kinds of decisions. Will it ever be able to? That starts to be the conversation about sentience.

Sentience, in my book anyway, is an ability (for good or bad) to be able to make a decision based on information not provided. Humans have an ability to jump to conclusions, sometimes the wrong ones, but we can interpolate missing information and link seemingly unlinked things to make a leap in logic from data not present. Of course, to prove a fact, we have to reverse engineer from there and see if our conclusion makes sense... but we can do that. AI cannot.

The AI can produce fabulous renderings of artwork from prompts... but it can't tell how many fingers it put on a person's hand or whether or not it has rendered that incorrectly. IF it could, it would never make that mistake... but it's damned hard to get an AI to not make that mistake. That's the easiest example I can come up with... humans can take a look at a picture generated by AI in seconds and tell the flaws... the AI clearly can't do that.