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.
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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
deleted by creator
How to blow up a data center
The first thing the peasants did when news of the french revolution reached them, was burn their local clerks’ records offices.
Use AI to destroy the AI
If we had real AGI and not just shitty chatbots, we could tell them to melt their GPUs for the good of the planet.
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.
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.
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
Don’t forget crypto before that, and still around now. SMDH