• regul@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    26 days ago

    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.

    • averyminya@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      25 days ago

      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?

  • tangentism@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    26 days ago

    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!”

  • lily33@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    26 days ago

    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…

    • Fermion@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      26 days ago

      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.

      • Blake (he/him) @beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        25 days ago

        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

  • jasoncg@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    26 days ago

    “Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders!”

    • Eric Schmidt, probably
  • Branquinho@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    26 days ago

    “I’m not hitting my goals on staying sober. I’d rather bet on my next drink to solve this problem for me.”

  • DdCno1@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    26 days ago

    I think we should start with AI CEOs first. Watch how quickly these tech bros become AI skeptics when you suggest this.

  • Storksforlegs@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    26 days ago

    Imagine someone like him acting like ‘coming up with solutions’ is the problem. Infuriating ghouls.

  • Kichae@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    26 days ago

    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?

  • kembik@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    26 days ago

    And we’ll come up with a name that merges climate and technology, let’s call it skynet.

  • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    26 days ago

    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.

    • Helix 🧬@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      26 days ago

      fine (yes, fine; not just “tax”) heavy energy sinks, to the point that they’re unable to run,

      Like AI? 😄

      • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        26 days ago

        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.