zlacker

Want to share your model? Or is this more like a hunch?

>>xpe+(OP)
Sounds like standard doomer crap tbh. I'm not sure which is more dangerous at this point - climate change denialism (it isn't happening) or climate change doomerism (we can't stop it, might as well give up)

>>xpe+(OP)
We need to cut emissions, but AGI research/development is going to increase energy usage dramatically amongst all the players involved. For now, this mostly means more natural gas power. Thus accelerating our emissions instead of reducing them. For something that will not reduce the emissions long term.

IMO, we should pause this for now and put these resources (human and capital) towards reducing the impact of global warming.

>>fartfe+s1
I’m not sure where you found your information to somehow form that ludicrous last strawman… Climate change is real, you can’t deny it, you can’t debate it. Simply look at the data. What you can debate is the cause… Again a sort of pointless debate if you look at the science. Not even climate change deniers as you call them are necessary saying that we shouldn’t do anything about it. Even big oil is looking into ways to lessen the CO2 in the atmosphere through various means.

That being said, the GP you’re talking about made no such statement whatsoever.

>>devjab+qe
Of course climate change is real but of course we can do something about it. My point is denialism and defeatism lead to the same end point. Attack that statement directly if you want to change my mind.

>>fartfe+Lk
I think your first sentence of the original post was putting people off; perhaps remove that and keep only the second...

>>candid+s2
Or we could use microwaves to drill holes as deep as 20km to tap geothermal energy anywhere in the world

https://www.quaise.energy/

>>colibr+Ww
I don’t know the details of how it works, but considering the environmental impact of fracking, I’m afraid something like this might have many unwanted consequences.

>>candid+s2
It isn't a quantitative model unless you give a prediction of some kind. In this case, dates (or date ranges) would make sense.

1. When do you predict catastrophic global warming/climate change? How do you define "catastrophic"? (Are you pegging to an average temperature increase? [1])

2. When do you predict AGI?

How much uncertainty do you have in each estimate? When you stop and think about it, are you really willing to wager that (1) will happen before (2)? You think you have enough data to make that bet?

[1] I'm not an expert in the latest recommendations, but I see that a +2.7°F increase over preindustrial levels by 2100 is a target by some: https://news.mit.edu/2023/explained-climate-benchmark-rising...