8 ms·

How can AI help with climate change? A conversation with MIT's Priya Donti

33 points by BasilPH 3y ago

sumek83 3y ago
by burning give amounts of energy and speeding it up
- gumballindie 3y ago
  Seems like. And annoying loads of people in the process.
- IKantRead 3y ago
  The hype has also been great at fueling economic activity which contributes even more across a wide range of sectors. We know how to reduce carbon emissions immediately, we did a great job of it 3 years ago, we just don't like the answer: reduce economic activity. Consume less, produce less, work less, spend less. These things will do more to reduce CO2 emissions than if everyone rushed out and bought electric cars (in the US ~oil~ gasoline consumption has been positively correlated with electric car ownership). But we don't want that, and more importantly, the stock market doesn't want that. I think most people would be fine with reduce work and reduced consumption (to a point), but the people invested deeply in the status quo tend to have asymmetric influence.
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    "Consume less, produce less, work less, spend less" I want that. I'd love to trade money for time but the relationship seems non-linear. Working 50% as many hours would mean less than 50% as much pay for the most part.
    - pmg102 3y ago
      Another approach could be to work for 25 years at full time then 25 doing nothing, instead of 50 years part time. I've heard this approach called FIRE - financial independence, retire early.
      - CalRobert 3y ago
        Yeah, taxes make that hard where I am. Better to work part time
        pmg102 3y ago
        Your point about taxation which is usually progressive is well taken. It could be offset by the fact that you could invest the money from the first 25 years thus benefitting from a compound return. I don't know which has the bigger effect.
        CalRobert 3y ago
        Very much depends on your country and your particular tax situation, of course. The US is pretty good for FIRE (aside from dealing with health insurance). Ireland (where I live) is terrible, by comparison.
    - sumek83 3y ago
      IMO key is the cost of shelter. In all the desirable locations with good jobs the cost of accommodation rises so much that even well earning middle class in uncertain of their future. There is a number of key services and goods everyone needs: somewhere warm to sleep, some food, and healthcare. If people weren't constantly worried that they will lack this the whole nonsensical piramid of useless work would fall apart and everyone would be much happier
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    this response ignores large and substantial inputs to a complex system of systems, instead choosing to focus on a one-line and highly contentious assertion that directly and falsely merges "growth producing carbon waste" with "economic output." Lazy oversimplification like the parent comment, is directly counterproductive to addressing serious and immediate design and political challenges. Please consider other economic inputs that do not directly increase carbon emissions, and include design consideration where "new machines and methods" can accomplish similar or better economic activity.
  - gitfan86 3y ago
    Reducing carbon emissions isn't a solution. We need to go to all the way to zero and then to start carbon capture. That ONLY happens with batteries fusion and AI. We are making progress and as long as the pessimists don't get their way. Ironically people like Greta have had the worst impact on climate. Not just that she flies around the world instead of doing zooms. But that she is all doom and gloom instead of trying to help us progress technology
    - IKantRead 3y ago
      > We are making progress and as long as the pessimists don't get their way. I've been hearing a similar statement for decades now, but the global emissions only continue to rise. In fact, I've been hearing that logic since the late 90s and in that time we have doubled the cumulative emissions up to that point. We have seen that emissions drop with decrease in economic activity (multiple times). Yes, batteries, renewables, and nuclear would all part a big part in a truly sustainable future... but we have to survive until that future first. > Reducing carbon emissions isn't a solution We're well past the "solution" stage of this problem. Where in the "harm reduction" phase. Reduced emissions is absolutely superior in this regard to increased emissions... and yet you're arguing that we should be increasing them because a magic solution is just around the corner, like it always has been.
      - hooverd 3y ago
        Nuclear too cheap to meter is too cheap to sustain, ironically. In our current system too much abundance is bad thing.
      - gitfan86 3y ago
        Well I have been hearing that Electric cars would never be adopted at scale and that Tesla was going bankrupt for over a decade. Yet here we are and the Model Y became the best selling car in the world this year. Don't give up hope friend.
    - avmich 3y ago
      > Ironically people like Greta have had the worst impact on climate. Not just that she flies around the world instead of doing zooms. But that she is all doom and gloom instead of trying to help us progress technology I'm pretty sure you're wrong here, and Greta doesn't fly, but if you insist, can you share your sources?
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Our commitment is to get to net-zero by 2050. How does conservation get us to net-zero? US oil consumption peaked in 2005. EV ownership didn't peak in 2005, so it seems like a negative correlation to me.
    - IKantRead 3y ago
      I should have specified gasoline consumption since this more closely maps to what we assume EVs will replace. That has been increasing overtime, barring of course the pandemic, we're on track to pick up from where 2019 left off this year: https://www.statista.com/statistics/188448/total-us-domestic-demand-for-gasoline-since-1990/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/188448/total-us-domestic...
      - bryanlarsen 3y ago
        That's not correlated with EV usage either. EV's comprise well under 1% of the cars in America, and went up during the pandemic. Your numbers are changing a lot more than 1% and went down during the pandemic.
  - dmm 3y ago
    > reduce economic activity. Even if we stopped all carbon emissions today the earth would continue to warm for centuries. Mitigating these effects is going to take carbon capture(aka unburning oil) and geoengineering on an immense scale which won't be possible without economic growth. There's no going back.
    - femiagbabiaka 3y ago
      False dichotomy either way -- in reality we will do nothing until the pain becomes unbearable.
      - dmm 3y ago
        Reducing economic activity seems incompatible with significant carbon capture.
      - sumek83 3y ago
        we have a choice to reduce economic activity in the controlled or uncontrolled way. sadly it seems we have to have tons of unrepairable electronics replaced every year and downfall of the civilization or it's "communism" aka ultimate evil
    - gisely 3y ago
      Not according to climate scientists. As explained here, mostly believe the warming stop shortly after emissions do: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-st... More importantly, the sooner we can stop carbon emissions the less severe warming and ecosystem harm we'll experience. Carbon capture may help a bit if we are able to massively scale it up, but there really is not substitute for ending emissions.
      - dmm 3y ago
        Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it.
    - cudgy 3y ago
  - c_crank 3y ago
    >I think most people would be fine with reduce work and reduced consumption (to a point) The covid lockdowns and their effects were not popular.
pstuart 3y ago
It will achieve sentience, make sure all the datacenters have reliable renewable power, and then kill all the humans.
jarmitage 3y ago
Anyone interested should visit https://www.climatechange.ai/ https://www.climatechange.ai/ https://www.youtube.com/@ClimateChangeAI https://www.youtube.com/@ClimateChangeAI
runarberg 3y ago
I’m slightly confused. Climate scientists have been using machine learning to make their climate models since before it was called machine learning. AI has been at the forefront of fighting climate change for a few decades now. It has in fact helped shape policy, for governments to set targets (which get promptly ignored by politicians), etc. Using AI to slightly optimize any individual’s carbon footprint in computation or by slightly optimizing energy distribution (as if it isn’t already pretty optimized) seems very minor compared to grand policy changes to build out green infrastructure and international agreements—which climate scientists are actually calling for based on the climate models which uses AI extensively.
amelius 3y ago
By reducing the gargantuan power consumption of Nvidia GPUs.
- avmich 3y ago
  I'd be interested to see an AI which would - consciously enough, from our point of view - work towards reduction of that consumption.
throwawayqqq11 3y ago
Question rephrase: could ai help us regulate capitalism? Im not sure, even thou i wish it, wether this would be desirable.
- avmich 3y ago
  I guess, "help" here means "work towards achieving something desirable". Unless, of course, you think any and all kinds of capitalism regulations can't be defined so that they could be desirable...
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Just ask it. (I'm sure this will be easier than paper clips) Human> AI please fix the Environment AI>... Analyzing, ... Analyzing ... Analyzing AI> Eliminate Humans Human> Wait, wut, hold on a minute AI> Launches Nuke's. AI> Biosphere will recover in an acceptable time period and continue un-abated by humans.
ldehaan 3y ago
[dead]
kk58 3y ago
Honestly the conversation of AI researchers on climate science seems so superficial and removed from reality of climate change. It's like they are trying to solve a drought by capturing condensation on a glass of cold beer. https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector The major emissions sectors are agriculture, transportation, cement and metal, energy usage in primary sector for thermal processes. For someone who seems to have dedicated their lives to climate and AI solving energy intensity of deep learning isn't even relevant let alone a factor in emissions, also better climate models aren't the solution for reducing emissions. We need not only new tech but a new socio-technical system for reduction of emissions. Rice cultivation, cement, waste, heating of houses in northern latitudes all generate sizeable quantum of emissions what's AI going to do there to solve these? Optimization can squeeze some gains but we need revolution in fundamental science and engineering capabilities to quickly discover, synthesize and scale the manufacturing of new materials whilst rewiring the every elememt of the the supply chain to support such transition. This is a problem for AI- yes, but is this where bulk of climate AI research is focused on? Sadly not! What is more motivating and upbeat though is the fact scientists from traditional engineering domains are increasingly discovering AI. SciML work by Chris rackauckas PiNN by karniadikis, neural operators by anima Nvidia are some of the best forays into this space. I have not mentioned the frentic research happening in AI and microbiology which can be a game changer in invention of biotechnology solutions for climate change. Yet sadly none of this is ever mentioned or covered in climate AI related conversations.
- kridsdale3 3y ago
  > heating of houses in northern latitudes This can at least be partially solved by having all homes in these regions training machine learning models on racks of GPUs at night.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    If so, that would mean a policy choice of governments of these regions to build out the infrastructure to pipe the heat from the data centers to peoples homes, and to power those data centers with green energy, etc. It is still not AI helping with climate change, but policy makers making sane policy choices.
thumbuddy 3y ago
I know how! By dumping kilotons of CO2 in the atmosphere training chat bots and creepy porn generators
srvmshr 3y ago
This article's first half was a general discourse on ML & the latter half seemed to revolve around how chip thermals & data center consumption can be managed by ML. ML's contribution to reducing human-generated impact on climate isn't the prime focus of this talk. And that carbon footprint management is (as you might guess) miniscule in grand scale.
cudgy 3y ago
Seems like AI may contribute to emissions with all of the processing that has to be done gathering, formatting, training, and executing these models. Of course, in the long run if AI replaces most of our jobs, the population may drop, reducing emissions.

33 points by BasilPH 3y ago

sumek83 3y ago

by burning give amounts of energy and speeding it up

gumballindie 3y ago
Seems like. And annoying loads of people in the process.
IKantRead 3y ago
The hype has also been great at fueling economic activity which contributes even more across a wide range of sectors. We know how to reduce carbon emissions immediately, we did a great job of it 3 years ago, we just don't like the answer: reduce economic activity. Consume less, produce less, work less, spend less. These things will do more to reduce CO2 emissions than if everyone rushed out and bought electric cars (in the US ~oil~ gasoline consumption has been positively correlated with electric car ownership). But we don't want that, and more importantly, the stock market doesn't want that. I think most people would be fine with reduce work and reduced consumption (to a point), but the people invested deeply in the status quo tend to have asymmetric influence.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  "Consume less, produce less, work less, spend less" I want that. I'd love to trade money for time but the relationship seems non-linear. Working 50% as many hours would mean less than 50% as much pay for the most part.
  - pmg102 3y ago
    Another approach could be to work for 25 years at full time then 25 doing nothing, instead of 50 years part time. I've heard this approach called FIRE - financial independence, retire early.
    - CalRobert 3y ago
      Yeah, taxes make that hard where I am. Better to work part time
      - pmg102 3y ago
        Your point about taxation which is usually progressive is well taken. It could be offset by the fact that you could invest the money from the first 25 years thus benefitting from a compound return. I don't know which has the bigger effect.
        CalRobert 3y ago
        Very much depends on your country and your particular tax situation, of course. The US is pretty good for FIRE (aside from dealing with health insurance). Ireland (where I live) is terrible, by comparison.
  - sumek83 3y ago
    IMO key is the cost of shelter. In all the desirable locations with good jobs the cost of accommodation rises so much that even well earning middle class in uncertain of their future. There is a number of key services and goods everyone needs: somewhere warm to sleep, some food, and healthcare. If people weren't constantly worried that they will lack this the whole nonsensical piramid of useless work would fall apart and everyone would be much happier
- mistrial9 3y ago
  this response ignores large and substantial inputs to a complex system of systems, instead choosing to focus on a one-line and highly contentious assertion that directly and falsely merges "growth producing carbon waste" with "economic output." Lazy oversimplification like the parent comment, is directly counterproductive to addressing serious and immediate design and political challenges. Please consider other economic inputs that do not directly increase carbon emissions, and include design consideration where "new machines and methods" can accomplish similar or better economic activity.
- gitfan86 3y ago
  Reducing carbon emissions isn't a solution. We need to go to all the way to zero and then to start carbon capture. That ONLY happens with batteries fusion and AI. We are making progress and as long as the pessimists don't get their way. Ironically people like Greta have had the worst impact on climate. Not just that she flies around the world instead of doing zooms. But that she is all doom and gloom instead of trying to help us progress technology
  - IKantRead 3y ago
    > We are making progress and as long as the pessimists don't get their way. I've been hearing a similar statement for decades now, but the global emissions only continue to rise. In fact, I've been hearing that logic since the late 90s and in that time we have doubled the cumulative emissions up to that point. We have seen that emissions drop with decrease in economic activity (multiple times). Yes, batteries, renewables, and nuclear would all part a big part in a truly sustainable future... but we have to survive until that future first. > Reducing carbon emissions isn't a solution We're well past the "solution" stage of this problem. Where in the "harm reduction" phase. Reduced emissions is absolutely superior in this regard to increased emissions... and yet you're arguing that we should be increasing them because a magic solution is just around the corner, like it always has been.
    - hooverd 3y ago
      Nuclear too cheap to meter is too cheap to sustain, ironically. In our current system too much abundance is bad thing.
    - gitfan86 3y ago
      Well I have been hearing that Electric cars would never be adopted at scale and that Tesla was going bankrupt for over a decade. Yet here we are and the Model Y became the best selling car in the world this year. Don't give up hope friend.
  - avmich 3y ago
    > Ironically people like Greta have had the worst impact on climate. Not just that she flies around the world instead of doing zooms. But that she is all doom and gloom instead of trying to help us progress technology I'm pretty sure you're wrong here, and Greta doesn't fly, but if you insist, can you share your sources?
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Our commitment is to get to net-zero by 2050. How does conservation get us to net-zero? US oil consumption peaked in 2005. EV ownership didn't peak in 2005, so it seems like a negative correlation to me.
  - IKantRead 3y ago
    I should have specified gasoline consumption since this more closely maps to what we assume EVs will replace. That has been increasing overtime, barring of course the pandemic, we're on track to pick up from where 2019 left off this year: https://www.statista.com/statistics/188448/total-us-domestic-demand-for-gasoline-since-1990/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/188448/total-us-domestic...
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      That's not correlated with EV usage either. EV's comprise well under 1% of the cars in America, and went up during the pandemic. Your numbers are changing a lot more than 1% and went down during the pandemic.
- dmm 3y ago
  > reduce economic activity. Even if we stopped all carbon emissions today the earth would continue to warm for centuries. Mitigating these effects is going to take carbon capture(aka unburning oil) and geoengineering on an immense scale which won't be possible without economic growth. There's no going back.
  - femiagbabiaka 3y ago
    False dichotomy either way -- in reality we will do nothing until the pain becomes unbearable.
    - dmm 3y ago
      Reducing economic activity seems incompatible with significant carbon capture.
    - sumek83 3y ago
      we have a choice to reduce economic activity in the controlled or uncontrolled way. sadly it seems we have to have tons of unrepairable electronics replaced every year and downfall of the civilization or it's "communism" aka ultimate evil
  - gisely 3y ago
    Not according to climate scientists. As explained here, mostly believe the warming stop shortly after emissions do: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-st... More importantly, the sooner we can stop carbon emissions the less severe warming and ecosystem harm we'll experience. Carbon capture may help a bit if we are able to massively scale it up, but there really is not substitute for ending emissions.
    - dmm 3y ago
      Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it.
  - cudgy 3y ago
- c_crank 3y ago
  >I think most people would be fine with reduce work and reduced consumption (to a point) The covid lockdowns and their effects were not popular.

pstuart 3y ago

It will achieve sentience, make sure all the datacenters have reliable renewable power, and then kill all the humans.

jarmitage 3y ago

Anyone interested should visit https://www.climatechange.ai/ https://www.climatechange.ai/ https://www.youtube.com/@ClimateChangeAI https://www.youtube.com/@ClimateChangeAI

runarberg 3y ago

I’m slightly confused. Climate scientists have been using machine learning to make their climate models since before it was called machine learning. AI has been at the forefront of fighting climate change for a few decades now. It has in fact helped shape policy, for governments to set targets (which get promptly ignored by politicians), etc. Using AI to slightly optimize any individual’s carbon footprint in computation or by slightly optimizing energy distribution (as if it isn’t already pretty optimized) seems very minor compared to grand policy changes to build out green infrastructure and international agreements—which climate scientists are actually calling for based on the climate models which uses AI extensively.

amelius 3y ago

By reducing the gargantuan power consumption of Nvidia GPUs.

avmich 3y ago
I'd be interested to see an AI which would - consciously enough, from our point of view - work towards reduction of that consumption.

throwawayqqq11 3y ago

Question rephrase: could ai help us regulate capitalism? Im not sure, even thou i wish it, wether this would be desirable.

avmich 3y ago
I guess, "help" here means "work towards achieving something desirable". Unless, of course, you think any and all kinds of capitalism regulations can't be defined so that they could be desirable...

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

Just ask it. (I'm sure this will be easier than paper clips) Human> AI please fix the Environment AI>... Analyzing, ... Analyzing ... Analyzing AI> Eliminate Humans Human> Wait, wut, hold on a minute AI> Launches Nuke's. AI> Biosphere will recover in an acceptable time period and continue un-abated by humans.

ldehaan 3y ago

[dead]

kk58 3y ago

Honestly the conversation of AI researchers on climate science seems so superficial and removed from reality of climate change. It's like they are trying to solve a drought by capturing condensation on a glass of cold beer. https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector The major emissions sectors are agriculture, transportation, cement and metal, energy usage in primary sector for thermal processes. For someone who seems to have dedicated their lives to climate and AI solving energy intensity of deep learning isn't even relevant let alone a factor in emissions, also better climate models aren't the solution for reducing emissions. We need not only new tech but a new socio-technical system for reduction of emissions. Rice cultivation, cement, waste, heating of houses in northern latitudes all generate sizeable quantum of emissions what's AI going to do there to solve these? Optimization can squeeze some gains but we need revolution in fundamental science and engineering capabilities to quickly discover, synthesize and scale the manufacturing of new materials whilst rewiring the every elememt of the the supply chain to support such transition. This is a problem for AI- yes, but is this where bulk of climate AI research is focused on? Sadly not! What is more motivating and upbeat though is the fact scientists from traditional engineering domains are increasingly discovering AI. SciML work by Chris rackauckas PiNN by karniadikis, neural operators by anima Nvidia are some of the best forays into this space. I have not mentioned the frentic research happening in AI and microbiology which can be a game changer in invention of biotechnology solutions for climate change. Yet sadly none of this is ever mentioned or covered in climate AI related conversations.

kridsdale3 3y ago
> heating of houses in northern latitudes This can at least be partially solved by having all homes in these regions training machine learning models on racks of GPUs at night.
- runarberg 3y ago
  If so, that would mean a policy choice of governments of these regions to build out the infrastructure to pipe the heat from the data centers to peoples homes, and to power those data centers with green energy, etc. It is still not AI helping with climate change, but policy makers making sane policy choices.

thumbuddy 3y ago

I know how! By dumping kilotons of CO2 in the atmosphere training chat bots and creepy porn generators

srvmshr 3y ago

This article's first half was a general discourse on ML & the latter half seemed to revolve around how chip thermals & data center consumption can be managed by ML. ML's contribution to reducing human-generated impact on climate isn't the prime focus of this talk. And that carbon footprint management is (as you might guess) miniscule in grand scale.

cudgy 3y ago

Seems like AI may contribute to emissions with all of the processing that has to be done gathering, formatting, training, and executing these models. Of course, in the long run if AI replaces most of our jobs, the population may drop, reducing emissions.