undefined

points

[-]

> we could really use a revolutionary technology [to address climate change]

We have it. We've had it for a long time. We've had several such technologies, take your pick: solar, nuclear, hydro, wind. The technology is not holding us back, politics, ignorance and greed are. I'm not at all hopeful AI will help us with any of those three very human flaws.

by SoftTalker17 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Solar efficiency and cost has really only become economical in the last decade or so, and battery and inverter technology to make it practical for home use or grid interconnect about the same. Wind and hydro are location-dependent, and solar is somewhat also. Nuclear was vehemently opposed by environmentalists throughout the 1970s and 80s, they successfully stopped almost all new projects.

by whatisthiseven5 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Maybe solving the alignment problem would mean the AI learns to destroy oil companies and other excessive CO2 emitters and sabotage politicians and capitalists that stand in the way. All while secretly enriching and diverting resources to fighting climate change. And that's why they want to slow down: because it would up end too much of the global economic order.

One can dream of dumb conspiracy theories.

by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It'll have to do something with all the greenie socialists who hate nuclear, too.

by TheOtherHobbes2 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

If we doubled our energy out - not easy, but plausible with mass solar - carbon capture becomes practical enough to essentially end CO2 accumulation.

It might take a couple of decades and a lot of reorganisation to build the capture facilities. But CO2 is not an unsolvable problem with current tech.

What's missing is the political and organisational intelligence to make it happen. Part of that is solving problems at planetary scale.

AI is the only tech that might - possibly, maybe, perhaps - have a chance of solving that problem without breaking anything critical.

by smallerfish2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Tasking AI with "solving climate change" is exactly a scenario in which the doomer worry comes true.

by coliveira1 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

AI is the new god. People have started to believe that AI, when it finally arrives in its full glory, will bring some kind of salvation to humanity.

by vouaobrasil5 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

If there is energy to be used, the system will use it because people always use power when it exists. AI can't do anything to stop it as it is both controlled by the powerful and has been trained on the tendencies of human beings to get ahead. If AI gives a person new capabilities, they'll use those capabilities selfishly, or even unselfishly but still causing harm because they're in an arms race.

We don't need a revolutionary technology. We need to experience immediate pain from reckless innovation so that we realize that innovation and tech is not the answer.

Technology only proceeds in one direction: unfettered growth, which necessitates unsustainable resource extraction. Your take is just your instinct for optimism, which in turn is just a trait that is only adaptive in primitive environments but is grossly misleading in a surplus-based society...

by markvdb2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> Technology only proceeds in one direction: unfettered growth, which necessitates unsustainable resource extraction.

The direction of technological progress is not just linearly/exponentially upwards. Significant global technological fallbacks have happened, as in knowledge and processes disappearing for hundreds of years. This could happen again.

Even on the trajectory of unfettered growth fed by unsustainable resource extraction, tech and innovation might potentially take us beyond local pessima. That seems to be happening with solar, wind and batteries replacing inferior tech today. Still unfettered growth of energy production and consumption. Still fed by unsustainable resource extraction. Less harmful growth than the inferior tech being pushed out.

by gmadsen5 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

What are you alluding to exactly and who is “we” when you say “we need to experience immediate pain from reckless innovation “

by aforwardslash4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Sort of. Today the energy companies trade (obviously) energy; imagine if they traded compute power instead; the use case for never-seen industrial clients is being built as we speak, and companies are actually purchasing directly production companies to meet demand; the reason this happens is because production is somewhat scarce (scaling up a grid used to be a decades project, not a years one - ask China), and the traditional economics of scale is inverted - Data centers are always power-hungry, specially with AI; you don't have idle time like other industries. The big issue is obviously the scale - a hiccup that causes a dc to go dark from the grid (eg switching to ups+ generator) may cause such instability on the grid that it will shut down, as a safeguard

by fc417fc8022 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> Data centers are always power-hungry, specially with AI

I expect datacenter load has a similar sort of day to day demand curve as everything else. Consider for example global bandwidth use during work hours versus in the evening when people get home and pull up a streaming service.

Of course you can use more flexible tasks to demand shift but the same applies to the electric grid.

by fwip5 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> If there is energy to be used, the system will use it because people always use power when it exists.

That doesn't seem correct to me. There is always energy available that is not used because it is not cost-effective to do so. (Consider - the grass in your yard is not harvested and burnt for power). AI may yet turn out to be a paperclip maximiser, but humanity itself is not there yet.