you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 126 points 9 months ago (11 children)

Virtually every forecast assumed that humans would at least try to stop it instead of deliberately accelerating it in competition to squeeze every penny out of the planet first.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 81 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    I don't think the forecasts necessarily built in "trying to stop it" but they certainly didn't include "accelerating it" with dumbassery like AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    If we had real AGI and not just shitty chatbots, we could tell them to melt their GPUs for the good of the planet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    An AGI would probably have some kind of drive for self-preservation. Plus, an AGI with time on its hands could come up with a more long-term, viable and more environmentally friendly solution to the climate crisis than commuting seppuku and melting a bunch of valuable hardware. Shit, you don't need to be an AGI or even a climate scientist to realize that solar and battery tech could help reduce GHG emissions.

    Of course, this is all assuming a future AGI shares our goals in any way.

    As an aside, keep in mind that shitty chatbots may be a stepping stone to AGI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago*

    It not really a question of “how?” Anymore. We know how to get most of the way there. We already developed technology to get at least halfway. We just need to roll it out, the “easy” part.

    • We know how to decarbonize at least 95% power generation
    • we know how to make significant efficiency/weatherization gains
    • we know how to electrify residential
    • we know how to decarbonize most of transportation
    • we have at least possibilities for aviation, shipping, industry, and at least some plastics

    Of course we don’t yet have 100% of the answer, but it’s criminal how much of the answer is already in our hands and we refuse to use it, or keep dragging our feet

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    No, they did include "trying to stop it". For example the ICC projections assume that, towards the end of the century, we start becoming carbon-negative by figuring out effective carbon capture.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    For example the ICC projections assume that, towards the end of the century, we start becoming carbon-negative by figuring out effective carbon capture.

    With magic fairy dust! How in the world did they base their projections on technology that didn't exist and wasn't even on the horizon?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago

    Bro the technology isn't the limitation, it's politics and the will of massive nations that prioritize money. They were right, we have the technology we need to correct it, but there is no magic button to fix it instantly

  • source
  • parent