I'm still convinced a big reason for the AI push is the energy needs mean a full run on remaining fossil fuels.

The rational thing would be to let it keep developing in small labs while we transition to renewables. Then after solving the energy crisis we'd be able to try and scale up AI.

Doing AI at present scale without renewable energy is stupid for everyone that isn't making a shit ton off fossil fuels.

Even then, it doesn't solve the water issue either.

We couldn't afford to use AI even if it worked, that's what people are missing, we flat out can't afford the resources, we need them for humans right now.

Most are boomers who know they'll die in the next decade. They don't give a shit.

“There have been many plagues in the world as there have been wars, yet plagues and wars always find people equally unprepared.”

If Camu were around, he'd add global warming.

They're not yet at runaway. If we drop emissons to zero, then temperatures stabilize within a human lifetime

These ones?

We uh, can't.

Not in the timescale that matters to us, with the resources and technological development available at hand.

But generally speaking?

You would need to introduce a different, runaway feedback loop that modifies/cancels/counters the first.

Like fungi did when they learned to eat lignin, or cyanobacteria introduced when they started spitting out that horrible and nasty O2.

Time and scale are what will do us in.

We just didn't pace ourselves at all, societally speaking.

Weren't able to build the chemistry and engineering tools needed to meaningfully expand the scope of the system beyond our planet to access any other resources or solutions beyond it...

And still cannot agree to any meaningful planet side changes that might even remotely allow for later pipedreams, because they need to happen now.

The Futurama ice cube joke is funny, but we can't even attempt anything half as harebrained on a fraction of that scale.

Destroy the nearest star.