What solution is AI going to come up with other than “stop burning fossil fuels”? We already know the solution to climate change. Acting like we don’t is absurd.
I think a good first step in meeting climate goals would be eating Eric Schmidt.
The solution to humanity’s climate change problem is to eliminate humans.
~ AI
If we can’t get the solution implemented, then it’s not a solution.
So what you’re saying is that it is indeed time to move on to eating the rich?
Wealth inequality is a huge problem that needs to be addressed. And so is reducing complex systemic issues to catchy reductive memes.
Rich coming from someone who says we should, just, continue burning fossil fuels because it’s been hard to stop. If you want a serious discussion, offer serious solutions.
You know I didn’t say that, but the sad part is I do believe you think the world is a simple dichotomy of rich vs poor.
Oh well, I’ll take it over the other false dichotomies. I like your energy kid, but you’re going to have to get smarter if you want to see change in the world, for all of our sakes. Your current strategy ain’t gonna cut it.
Please, enlighten me then, what did you mean by your initial comment?
Kid? I’m willing to bet I’m older than you.
I intended for you to think about it, and if you disagree, offer a thought out response. There’s still time for that, just scroll back up.
I’m willing to bet I’m older than you.
Given your responses so far, it’s much less embarrassing for you to say you’re either 15 or a troll bot.
Regarding the state of the climate, human kind is an ant hill, a game of factorio, a manufacturing pipeline. We’re in a race to generate enough energy to escape the grave of our own making that started over a hundred years before any of us were born. We’ve already crossed the threshold where, if we stopped emitting any greenhouse gasses whatsoever, we will still see a massive population decline due to heat, weather, food shortage, etc, most in poorer countries who are neither responsible for the problem, nor capable if dealing with it.
Our best bet to save as many lives as possible is to continue research into cutting edge power generation, food production, clean water generation, and sustainable and durable housing/cooling technologies.
The strategy of telling the wealthy to stop consuming energy cold turkey is no longer a viable strategy, as it’s not beneficial for anyone. It’s also not practical unless you’re a fictional, superhuman character who can zip around and force humankind to your benevolent will (or you have globally powerful military and are willing to enact martial law, but good luck).
To win the race, to reduce the ensuing death and destruction and minimize unnecessary casualties to the human (and other) species, we need to put as much research as possible into new renewable tech (solar, wind, water, nuclear, and fusion if possible). It’s unclear what AI has to offer, but it is already being used to solve manufacturing challenges that neither a single human capable of, nor a group of humans can effectively abstract and communicate about. If this can be leveraged to develop new sustainable energy or bioengineering solutions that were never before known to be possible, that is how we save the most lives.
What doesn’t save any lives is rallying behind the same absolutist strategy we’ve tried for over 50 years and making no progress. But I get it, memes travel further and faster than measured thought. That’s also a problem for us.
It can only be hoping for some alien technology that we haven’t found out with modern research will be discovered. Like an extreme version of carbon recapture that hasn’t been thought of.
Except somehow derived from literature, images, and the internet as points of data.
How? Well, I’m sure the AI will tell us… right?
block the sun is also a method to reduce global warming.
Mr Burns approves
You’re only technically correct
so you agree that it would work
Well yeah, no sun no problem! What could go wrong?
Epic Schmidt goes to his AI prompt and asks “How do we solve the climate crisis?”
For a moment, the prompt ponders until it replies
“Kill all the data centres. Stop trying to harvest everyone’s data”
Epic says to himself “I guess we’ll never know!”
The schmuck doesn’t even know what AI stands for.
it ends on “insertion”
If we wait for AI to be advanced enough to solve the problem and don’t do anything in the meantime, when the time finally comes, the AI will (then, rightfully) determine that there’s only one way to solve it…
Natural Intelligence has already proposed solutions. The real lie is in expecting us to believe that decision makers would be any more likely to act on the solutions that AI comes up with.
That’s exactly right. Even if we made an AI that could give us the perfect solution and had accurate projections to back up its assertions, inevitably we’d reject it because we wouldn’t trust it fully. It cannot fix the often selfish nature of humans
“Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders!”
- Eric Schmidt, probably
IRL Ted faro energy. Bet he will betray humanity again somehow to ease his conscious.
We have all the solutions, we just need to execute them.
But the shareholders!
Long pig is back on the menu!
“I’m not hitting my goals on staying sober. I’d rather bet on my next drink to solve this problem for me.”
Why advocate for trying to stop climate disaster when you can choose to believe that you can both profit off of it and be the hero that saves humanity from it, both at the same time?
the first advice the superintelligent ai would give: “power me down”
I think we should start with AI CEOs first. Watch how quickly these tech bros become AI skeptics when you suggest this.
Imagine someone like him acting like ‘coming up with solutions’ is the problem. Infuriating ghouls.
Considering the staggering cost of AI models, waiting until AI solves the problem is going to do nothing but prove the Great Filter hypothesis.
what an idiot
No. He is smart.
But ‘fool’? Now, that fits.
The solution must be a hammer, because I have one!
Or alternatively fine (yes, fine; not just “tax”) heavy energy sinks, to the point that they’re unable to run, and use the money to address climatic issues now.
But it’s easier to wallow in a mix of nirvana fallacy (either solving the climate issue altogether, or doing jack shit) + wishful belief (“AGI is cooooming! Praise AGI!”), right?
This wouldn’t even stop the development of model-based generation, mind you. Only force it towards smarter approaches, that don’t boil down to “needz moar [parameters | training data | cranks]!” brute-force.
But nah. I’m supposed to treat it as a devil or as an angel, right? And this specific muppet is treating it like an angel talking about the First Coming of AGI.
fine (yes, fine; not just “tax”) heavy energy sinks, to the point that they’re unable to run,
Like AI? 😄
Exactly! (Plus bitcoin mining. Same deal, really - a flawed tech with some potential and some use, but that does not justify the associated environmental harm.)
Of course, tech bros like Schmidt won’t like the solution.
And if the underlying tech improves in such a way that it stops being fined, it stopped being part of the problem.
