3 ms·

I'm calling out bullshit by someone whom everyone believes. Just like I'm calling out the bs of Musk, Hawking, etc., about AI destroying humanity. Just because

I'm calling out bullshit by someone whom everyone believes. Just like I'm calling out the bs of Musk, Hawking, etc., about AI destroying humanity. Just because people are smart and successful in one respect, doesn't mean they automatically have any credible insight into every topic that exists. Humanity isn't getting destroyed (much less destroying itself) any time soon. Instilling fear and panic into people about climate change, AI, terrorism, etc., is not only counter-productive, it is wrong on all levels.

moonshinefe 11y ago
Pretty sure neither Hawking nor Musk suggested humanity was going to be destroyed any time soon as you suggest. I think they were just voicing concerns that were reasonable about AI in the future. Not really scare mongering on the scale various governments are going for these days, that's for sure.
acqq 11y ago
From the Bill's actual letter, it's not him, he's not scaring to "humanity getting destroyed" (your words) it's the consensus of world scientists about the effect on the climate and he just states the facts: https://www.gatesnotes.com/2016-Annual-Letter https://www.gatesnotes.com/2016-Annual-Letter "Scientists say that to avoid these dramatic long-term changes to the climate, the world must cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80 percent by 2050, and eliminate them entirely by the end of the century. When I first heard this I was surprised. Can’t we just aim to cut carbon emissions in half? I asked many scientists. But they all agreed that wouldn’t be enough. The problem is that CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for decades. Even if we halted carbon emissions tomorrow, the temperature would still rise because of the carbon that’s already been released. No, we need to get all the way down to zero. That’s a huge challenge. In 2015, the world emitted 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide to produce energy. This is a mind-boggling number. (It’s worth remembering, because it will come in handy. For example, someone may tell you they know how to remove 100 million tons of carbon per year. That sounds like a lot, but if you do the math—100 million divided by 36 billion—you’ll see that they’re talking about 0.3 percent of the problem. Every reduction in emissions helps, but we still have to work on the other 99.7 percent.)"

moonshinefe 11y ago

Pretty sure neither Hawking nor Musk suggested humanity was going to be destroyed any time soon as you suggest. I think they were just voicing concerns that were reasonable about AI in the future. Not really scare mongering on the scale various governments are going for these days, that's for sure.

acqq 11y ago

From the Bill's actual letter, it's not him, he's not scaring to "humanity getting destroyed" (your words) it's the consensus of world scientists about the effect on the climate and he just states the facts: https://www.gatesnotes.com/2016-Annual-Letter https://www.gatesnotes.com/2016-Annual-Letter "Scientists say that to avoid these dramatic long-term changes to the climate, the world must cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80 percent by 2050, and eliminate them entirely by the end of the century. When I first heard this I was surprised. Can’t we just aim to cut carbon emissions in half? I asked many scientists. But they all agreed that wouldn’t be enough. The problem is that CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for decades. Even if we halted carbon emissions tomorrow, the temperature would still rise because of the carbon that’s already been released. No, we need to get all the way down to zero. That’s a huge challenge. In 2015, the world emitted 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide to produce energy. This is a mind-boggling number. (It’s worth remembering, because it will come in handy. For example, someone may tell you they know how to remove 100 million tons of carbon per year. That sounds like a lot, but if you do the math—100 million divided by 36 billion—you’ll see that they’re talking about 0.3 percent of the problem. Every reduction in emissions helps, but we still have to work on the other 99.7 percent.)"