nah it's natural
-
I was just thinking about the poor air quality today and yesterday here in the Midwest, and then I see this. I want to be hopeful we can change this in my lifetime, but I am also not optimistic.
Depends how old you are. I'm 47. It's gonna far worse. The question is will my kids be the ones to say it's bad enough? I don't know. Maybe theirs.
Also it's hilariously optimistic that this chart only thinks a 4 degree rise by 2100. Seems very conservative.
Personally speaking I'm investigating moving my family further north here in Canada to get ahead of the madness to come.
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
From when we discovered the ozone hole to banning hairspray and shit was about 10 years.
Also, I didn't say we decided the pacific trash hole was bad. I said we decided it would kill all the life in the ocean, and that was hilariously wrong.
Have you taken a reading comprehension course in the last 10 or 15 years?
-
They are not ignoring it, you silly Billy. They are treating it like everyone else is.
wrote last edited by [email protected]They are the some of the biggest consumers of electronics and technology. What do you think powers that. Fairy dust?
-
So bezos and his guests flying dozens of individual private jets to Venice are the "younger generations"? It doesn't have a lot to do with age but seems to correlate with wealth. The wealthier you are (as a nation and an individual) the more you typically (on average) contribute to climate change.
wrote last edited by [email protected]So bezos and his guests flying dozens of individual private jets to Venice are the “younger generations”?
As wasteful as that may seem, it's doesn't make much of a difference in the bigger picture. What does make a big impact is using all the services Bezos is providing. And not just his. Every cloud service uses an insane amount of energy. Youtube, TikTok, streaming services, online games, iCloud, Dropbox, video calls, crypto valuta, A.I. They can't build data centers fast enough to supply the demand.
-
They are the some of the biggest consumers of electronics and technology. What do you think powers that. Fairy dust?
Two things.
-
Your original statement was that they were ignoring it, not that they were contributing to it. They are definitely not ignoring it. They have less ability to ignore it that any previous generation.
-
Their consumption of electronics is the result of how they were brought up. Not that they have some kind of suicidal death wish. If you were in their generation you would be doing the same thing. As would I.
-
-
Two things.
-
Your original statement was that they were ignoring it, not that they were contributing to it. They are definitely not ignoring it. They have less ability to ignore it that any previous generation.
-
Their consumption of electronics is the result of how they were brought up. Not that they have some kind of suicidal death wish. If you were in their generation you would be doing the same thing. As would I.
And if they where in an older generation, they would have done the same thing as that generation. That's exactly my point. Every generation follows the trends and do what they have to to get by. What gets my piss boiling is their whining that the climate crisis is the fault of older generations, while they themselves aren't any better.
-
-
you don't exist
Shit. Can i put you in front of my therapist? Been having this argukent and it woukd be great to have someone else on my side.
thing completely unrelated to anything i said that you just like to think about
There are less cool obsessions, sure.
Is this the wrong reply? I guess it is completely unrelated.
-
And if they where in an older generation, they would have done the same thing as that generation. That's exactly my point. Every generation follows the trends and do what they have to to get by. What gets my piss boiling is their whining that the climate crisis is the fault of older generations, while they themselves aren't any better.
That's a valid point.
-
Is this the wrong reply? I guess it is completely unrelated.
Yeah it feels like you were just arguing at me with no regard to anything I'd said.
-
From when we discovered the ozone hole to banning hairspray and shit was about 10 years.
Also, I didn't say we decided the pacific trash hole was bad. I said we decided it would kill all the life in the ocean, and that was hilariously wrong.
Have you taken a reading comprehension course in the last 10 or 15 years?
Yes, yes, you're very smart and edgy. Better not do anything, since the planet will do just fine on its own.
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
Im gonna assume that's a "No." In answer to whether or not you've had any sort of reading comprehension classes. That's okay. The only way you can go now is to improve. Good luck buddy.
-
Americans often say this
First off, I'm not American.
You are saying that cruising in a several ton metal missiles, often alone, back and fourth over the planet or to McDonalds is necessary!
First of all, fuck off, I've flown back and fourth across the planet exactly once and that was to see my father before he died. I hadn't seen him in 25 years, because he left to the US to pursue something resembling income when I was 2, as our own country was only just getting started economically. Second of all, I said it's "often necessary", not strictly always necessary.
we have invented train, bus, bicycle, electric cars, please for god sake stop working for astroturfing oil company proxies
Who's been astroturfing oil company proxies? And anyway, when talking about the CO2 impact, trains, buses and electric cars are part of the number. Bicycles quite a bit less, because the CO2 there is production (once per bike and not comparable to a car or a train) and the extra food you need to eat. But trains, buses and electric cars absolutely do use energy - and therefore increase CO2 emissions, even if indirectly.
But the most important part
Do you think these are just different technologies that happened to have been developed simultaneously? These are all from the same spark. Neural networks giving rise to emergent unexplainable phenomenon when prodded in very very specific ways. Ai research is almost all trying to understand how the fuck that happens and why it can do all these things.
Radiology is a good use case. Ai porn maybe not so much.
I realize that neural networks are the basis of all that, but I'm saying we don't need to be pushing everyone to use a super energy-expensive chatbot instead of a regular search. We don't need AI chatbots embedded into literally every software application we use daily. This doesn't benefit the research, it benefits stock values because AI is a buzzword and you CAN'T run a publicly traded company without saying you're harnessing the power of AI, shareholders will literally murder you.
That's why people are dunking on AI instead of cars. Because 99% of public-facing AI is useless shit people actively dislike and so is 99% of AI energy usage. With cars, I'm willing to bet at least 10% of trips are strictly necessary, and 40-50% of trips are deemed necessary because of stupid car-centric city design with no transit, so still necessary, but for the wrong reasons. I doubt more than about 50% of trips are just leisure altogether. But these are just numbers pulled out of my ass to illustrate a point: There is some car travel that is necessary, some car travel that could be avoided by political change, but is currently necessary for the people doing it. But very little AI usage that is necessary.
Google, Microsoft, etc, aren't building billions upon billions of dollars worth of data centers at a never-seen-before pace to run models that benefit humanity. They're doing it because right now all the money in the world is in building a better "Here are the tallest buildings in NYC to jump off after losing your job" machine than your competitor, and shoving it in more products nobody asked for.
And worst of all, just shoving more and more input data at larger and larger LLMs alone isn't likely to cause new breakthroughs in AI. For all we know, it might be a dead end in the search of AGI - and they're well into diminishing returns as far as investing more and more energy into training new models is concerned.
For sure cars are worse for the planet than AI. But cars DO something. They get you to places. AI tells you how to kill yourself, or how to make pizza with glue, etc. Its best use cases are for cheating at homework, and replacing human workers without even making sure AI CAN do their jobs (good luck hiring all your support staff back, Klarna). It's currently a completely new plague on the planet, and tech CEOs are doing everything to point it out more and more. You know when was the last time I heard anything from Gernot Döllner or Ola Källenius? Fucking never. They don't shove themselves everywhere to let you know what they're doing to destroy the planet. At best they'll tell you what they're doing to reduce their impact. But tech CEOs right now will outright tell you they're going to fire everyone they can, build as many energy-intensive data centers as they can, and drain desert towns of their last drinking water, just so you could see what it would be like if the chick from Avatar had 3 boobs.
THAT is why people are mad at the AI industry.
Americans often say this
I don't var if you are American.
The oil industry is astroturfing openly.
ML has uses, cars has their uses. They're about similar in legit use, I would say around 0.1%
Destroying the planet for no reason has been all the rage for decades now and is happening exclusively due to burning. Oil. When the planet starts to burn we all die. No other contributions matter.
-
Depends a lot on where you are from. Not everyone has the means to uproot and move to a walkable city or a city with public transport.
Our governments have fundamentally failed us
Astroturfing and lobbying and bribery has. It's actually easy to not participate in burning or planet though.
