zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. candid+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-05-18 04:37:59
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.

replies(2): >>colibr+uu >>xpe+QN1
2. colibr+uu[view] [source] 2024-05-18 12:16:08
>>candid+(OP)
Or we could use microwaves to drill holes as deep as 20km to tap geothermal energy anywhere in the world

https://www.quaise.energy/

replies(1): >>simonk+QY
◧◩
3. simonk+QY[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-18 16:41:17
>>colibr+uu
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.
4. xpe+QN1[view] [source] 2024-05-19 01:22:27
>>candid+(OP)
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...

[go to top]