deleted by creator
If a true AI is any good at it’s goal of beating climate change, what are the odds it’s solution would involve genocide of the human race?
deleted by creator
We used a small tons worth of electricity to come up with the idea that we should pump less co2 into the atmosphere
When these weirdos get older they always stop giving a shit about anyone but themselves or more to the point they stop pretending they ever cared for anyone else.
They were always this way. It’s sociopathy, not age that causes this.
Yes but with age they stop pretending.
Kind of like speeding toward a cliff but he doesn’t think we can stop in time. Instead, he wants to floor it in the hopes of hopping the gap and landing safely on the other side.
That is certainly one of the ideas I’ve ever heard.
What a fucking dipshit
He’s just trying to subvert expectations, why not make things worse when you can’t make things better!
/s
I’ve never seen Eric Schmidt say anything that wasn’t utter idiocy. And he says a lot of things, and is always given a platform to say more, just because he’s rich.
solving global warming is really simple: kill off all human beings.
i wonder how long ai algorithms will take to figure that out.
You could do it in order of CO2 footprint, which pretty much tracks wealth. I bet if you just killed off the top 1% you’d make a huge dent.
all these private jets
Global warming is already achieving that goal. It’s a self-regulating system.
Except it’s disproportionately killing those producing the least amount of global warming - I’ve yet to hear of a billionaire killed by global warming.
And it’s also killing the rest of the biosphere in the process. Which wasn’t doing so great to begin with.
If he’s talking about the AI we have in any near future, it’s not figuring anything out. But I think he’s just saying whatever he can pull out of his ass to deflect attention from how his kind are the problem.
AI isn’t going to come with a new magic solution to global warming, it’s going to come with the same solutions we already have. Solutions which we should already be doing, but instead we’re listening to these fucks with too much money.
Of course it will. Simple: build a bunch of killer robots to exterminate 90% of humanity. Problem solved.
It’s an advanced AI. Surely it can do an Israel and remotely detonate the smartphones of the people it doesn’t need anymore.
Yeah it’s not like our emissions ever grew 1000% per capita because we had no better plan.
Testing
It’s almost like these fucks don’t understand anything about the technology they’re touting
Do you think that they’ll listen to that then? No, they’ll just say that “the models are wrong” and continue to use up even more energy.
It would just end up like in the Love death and robots episode When the Yogurt Took Over. They wouldn’t listen and just do their own thing.
AI will solve it if they give AI the wheel. And I’m sure one of the first thing it’ll do is eliminating all humans
It’s just an excuse to kick the can down the road further and continue making short term cash.
Schmidt promises that these AI companies will make energy generation systems at least 15% more efficient or maybe even better, telling the audience that “that’s a lot of money for a utility.”
He’s not even trying to be subtle about it.
I would love to drop these guys into a post scarcity society where their money means jack shit and see how they react.
Can you drop me there first, please?
I promise to be suitably wowed. Also, I’ll film them for you. Sacrifices for the greater good or whatever.
Additionally, if AI actually gives us this answer, tge answer we have already now, will we as a global society actualky implement it, because it sounds inconvenient (at least for some) or will we say, hey the AI seems to have made a mistake.
If actual scientists were in charge, and maybe had some ideas that they weren’t certain would work but sounded promising, which could be theoretically tested with AI - there would be hope.
But none of these fuckers would allow anyone with more than half a brain cell near it, because “investment and growth and blablabla”Then again, we could just do that with existing supercomputers and all these power hungry AI crap companies’ resources (I’m sure some supercomputers do get used for the modelling already)…instead of whatever the fuck they’re trying to do now.
The only thing we should use AI for is to replace CEOs. AI can spit out inane bullshit at a fraction of the cost of a CEO.
That’s what I’ve been saying for years, we should start on the most expensive jobs.
Reality? Yeah I watched that on TV once. Didn’t like it.
“I know that it destroys our planet, but we shouldn’t restrict my money generation machine” - person who wants infinite money
20 years later…
“It’s too late now. You should’ve not dropped climate conservation and solved global warming without AI” - AI
This is the kind of thing that makes me support use of extra-judicial methods (at least in a temporary and limited context) against global oligarchs and senior lackeys.
The host then followed up with, “Do you think we can meet AI’s energy without total blowing out climate goals?” and Schmidt answered with, “We’re not going to hit the climate goals anyway because we’re not organized to do it — and the way to do it is with the ways that we’re talking about now — and yes, the needs in this area will be a problem. But I’d rather bet on AI solving the problem than constraining it and having the problem if you see my plan.”
This is outright malicious. How exactly would AI “solve the problem”? Later on in the article (I am not watching the propaganda video) alludes to “AI … will make energy generation systems at least 15% more efficient or maybe even better” but he clearly just made that up on the spot. And at any rate, even if “AI” helps discover a method to make (all?) energy generation 15% more efficient that would still require trillion-dollar investments to modify current energy generation plants using the new technology.
Who is Schmidt to say that the returns of using the total spend in the above-mentioned scenario wouldn’t be better used on investing into wind and solar?
not gonna happen, this would break thermodynamics. he made that up on the spot, he’s full of shit and he knows it
Why should a 15 % improvement break that?
CCGTs have efficiencies in the range of 60%-ish percent. bringing it up to 85% would mean that now these run almost at carnot efficiency taking adiabatic flame temperature of methane burning in air as upper and practical temperatures of heatsink (60C) as lower. this is not happening, because other cycles with lower efficiencies are used in practice
if you want to improve efficiency of power generation, just replace old junk with new kit, or better yet, build nuclear and renewables where efficiency matters less when considering emissions. you know what, damn i do think that lying box burning enough electricity to power a small country (like macedonia) could come up with this
Who said that they only improve the most modern plants? And why not by using the heat too? And only those burning NG? Why not nuclear, solar, wind etc.? As stupid as such a random made up number is, it is possible, given how vague it is.
because these end up generating most of electricity. older plants matter less specifically because these are less efficient - operating them means more fuel costs per MWh. normally, you can see new flashy plants generating all the time it’s practical, because these are more efficient, have less maintenance downtime etc and when demand grows, progressively less efficient units start generating coming from spinning reserve. the two exceptions are NPPs which are best operated at constant high power because of their neutron physics and renewables that are literal free energy so everything they do is taken in. the only place where you can improve efficiency of NPPs is in turbine, and that probably is pretty well optimized unless turbine is very old, because increasing steam temperature would mean changed conditions in reactor in way that could happen to be out of spec. we have figured out wind power pretty well, and perovskites aren’t a thing, and won’t be a thing until they become more durable, which they won’t. in all cases, upgrades would have to make sense both economically and/or in emission costs. this includes CHP and laying municipal heating grids, and good luck with that with how dysfunctional american local govts are (where probably biggest emission gains from CHP could be made)
you can redo this for other types of thermal powerplants and come to the same conclusion. if you say that saltman&co and his assemblage of lying machines can outsmart thousands of turbine engineers, you might be a shill for making other people believe that or a moron for believing that yourself
It doesn’t really matter if it’s possible or not from a physics sense (I have no clue and am not making any statements on this).
As we both agree, he clearly just made that up and picked a random number without any thoughts.
Damn oligarchs acting all “holier than thou” and framing anyone who opposes them as “out of touch lazy, idiots” and yet their argumentation is on the level of a pre-teen. Just goes to show how they despise what they see as dirty plebs.
He’ll be happy to let AI solve it until AI suggests we should eat the rich and distribute the wealth…
I’d be surprised if they haven’t already put in constraints to prevent it recommending we abolish capitalism.
Well, at least we know who has a gigantic amount of shares and OpenAI
My guess would be Nvidia. But probably both.
Oh, I’ve seen that before.
“Hey AI, please come up with an efficient mass transit vehicle for the modern age.”
“Trains.”
“Um… no, we need a modern approach that maximizes throughput and–”
“Trains.”
“No. How about pods with people inside–”
“On cheap infrastructure with low friction steel wheels and coupled together. Trains.”
“It’s not letting us push our agenda, this isn’t going to work. Hey, other AI…”Trains are the carcinization of transport.
I love that we were able to decouple this meme from peterson even tho he popularized it iirc.
Its a good science meme.
This is what happens when we do what CEOs want. We will make the world uninhabitable while getting murked by skynet.
We are officially in a prelude to a sci-fi story.
AI solution:
ai can do nothing. besides ai eat more power that may accelerate the crisis of climate
If the cost of energy included its external cost from pollution, then they’d develop more energy-efficient AI. Overuse is an economics problem, not an inherent AI limitation.
So… It’ll kill all humans!
