I'm ready to make Schmidt live the life an AI tells him how to live before we let AI tell all us what to do
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
112 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37699 readers
227 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Gee. It's almost as if rich people don't give a single shit about anyone else. /s
We’re not going to hit our climate targets so he’s going to snort an entire mailbag of cocaine every single day.
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!"
We have all the solutions, we just need to execute them.
Long pig is back on the menu!
But the shareholders!
Why not both you fucking clown
the first advice the superintelligent ai would give: "power me down"
"I'm not hitting my goals on staying sober. I'd rather bet on my next drink to solve this problem for me."
Some people should just shut up and retire.
And we'll come up with a name that merges climate and technology, let's call it skynet.
I saw a post the other day here that was saying something along the lines of "because china's car market is swapping to EV's we might be at the tipping point for climate change either in 2024 or 2025"
Which if true would be really nice. I have no idea of the validity of that claim, but i just wanted to add it. Maybe we aren't so screwed? Fingers crossed I guess :3
There's growing research into positive tipping points for the climate. Biden's historic investment into renewables put a finger on the scales tipping them for significantly more solar and wind investment, which will of course reduce the cost of building solar and wind and soon enough the federal government's finger won't even be needed on the scale to make solar and wind cost effective to build.
Other decarbonization efforts like pushing for more bike infrastructure leading to fewer car trips and more bike trips, and shifting cars to electricity rather than gasoline also have tipping points where it will make far more sense to do the cheaper thing that happens to be better for the climate than not
So why don't you at least try to run the numbers. Takes like 2 minutes. Total output, output per car, number of cars - it's not rocket science.
Need to factor in the carbon cost of constructing a new vehicle vs running a less efficient one for longer. Disposal and possible recycling of old vehicles, also not free. Upgrades to the charging grid and construction of charging locations for all those new vehicles. Brakes and tires also cause significant pollution and are still an issue no matter the power unit of the car.
Then compare all that to building trams and light rail in metro areas instead of building cities to accommodate cars, roads and parking lots instead of humans.
Yeah, I could have, but it would have taken longer than 5 minutes of work, and I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough to take all the factors into account. I was posting this while taking a quick break etc.
I was just trying to add some hope to an otherwise gloomy topic.
But you're right, I'm sure with some effort I could probably have at least a ballpark idea.
The solution must be a hammer, because I have one!
There are so many high-profile assholes in this country named Eric.
I think we are past the tipping point now, it’s downhill from here and what we do to reduce carbon emissions will only determine how fast we go down that hill.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
The solution to humanity's climate change problem is to eliminate humans.
~ AI
what an idiot
No. He is smart.
But ‘fool’? Now, that fits.
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.
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
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?
view more: next ›