3 ms·

>However, we need a global consensus for geoengineering. Why? Does china or the us need a consensus before taking existential risks like making ai? Or detonati

by pfisch 1mo ago

>However, we need a global consensus for geoengineering. Why? Does china or the us need a consensus before taking existential risks like making ai? Or detonating a nuke that had a tiny chance of setting the atmosphere on fire? Or attacking random countries with almost no rationale or plan? This kind of thinking is why the EU is screwed. No other major power cares that much because they aren't at the same level of risk as the eu.

consumer451 1mo ago
> Why? Well, let's say we use sulfur. For the sake of argument, let's say it's not the EU, but some private SV-funded org. So, what is the legal/geopolitical liability for that? What if >99% scientific consensus says that that org's upper atmo sulfur injection led to the most insane monsoon/desertification half-century in 1 billion's people area, in known history? What then? What if the EU's geoengineering dropped Russian temps by -2C on average? Do you realize the geopolitical b.s. that would start? Forget the fake NATO bullshit, now they have a real argument! We live on one tiny globe ffs, we need to agree on this shit. By agree, I mean we need to allow risk to be diversified, like we need a global risk pool for geoengineering, and we better get on that soon! It sounds like it's a huge problem, doesn't it? Well, one of the benefits of giving all the power to around 3000 billionaire dudes is that this is a far smaller number to get to agree on something. Instead of multi-billion citizen democracy, and all the issues that involves... we just need to convince 3000 dudes. Is this actually a potential benefit of wealth & power concentration? It really seems like it is!
- red75prime 1mo ago
  > What if >99% scientific consensus says that that org's upper atmo sulfur injection led to to the most insane monsoon/desertification That's unrealistic. Climate models aren't good enough to predict the regional-level consequences of large-scale interventions (not to mention that scientists are people, and they might be averse to creating an international flashpoint). Realistically, it will create/exacerbate international tensions. The monsoon/desertification will be linked to geoengineering with or without scientific consensus and whether or not they were really caused by geoengineering. As the climate models improve by incorporating active intervention data it will be possible to decrease adverse consequences. It's a risky approach, but, when the consequences of climate change will become undeniably bad, some countries/individuals might try. But, yeah, I agree with you in the end.
  - consumer451 1mo ago
    > It's a risky approach, but, when the consequences of climate change will become undeniably bad, some countries might try. That will be far too late. I mean, nearly the entire EU has reached record temps this year... if not now, then when? Wait until AMOC stops? Does anyone have any idea the havoc that this will create? We will be a dry arctic climate. Ireland and UK first, the rest of us next. We need multiple Manhattan Project-level projects in the EU, for insulation + renewables + batteries. When we let Northvolt die, I almost cried. Fuck the German bankers who are somehow beholden to Moscow, and we cannot pray for Norwegian money. We need to take care of this shit. We are more exposed to climate change and economically to China-focused manufacturing than any large group on the planet. However, we are larger than the USA, we can do this. We have to do this. Meanwhile, we have to get the entire planet on-board, especially by getting Moscow out of the 19th Century, and their insane imperialist ambitions. No big deal. At the rate of Reform/AfD/KO/Rassemblement National election projections, we in Europe are entirely fucked. What the fuck? Forget "EU regulations," is anyone actually paying attention to what actually matters?
    - sfn42 1mo ago
      > we cannot pray for Norwegian money Just for the record, our oil fund is "only" about $2.2 trillion. It's huge relative to our population and huge in general, but it would quickly dry up if divided among all of EU. Even just divided among Norwegians it would "only" amount to like $500k per person. So sure it's a lot of money but it's also not really as astronomical as many seem to think. Elon Musk alone is almost worth half that and will probably catch up if things continue the way they are.
- pfisch 1mo ago
  > What if the EU's geoengineering dropped Russian temps by -2C on average? Then Russia makes some empty threats and the EU negotiates with Russia about what to do next. You are really just suggesting paralysis even if you don't realize that is what you are doing.
nostrebored 1mo ago
There’s something odd about the concentration of true believers in ai xrisk and climate change catastrophism. They are both technopessimist in a way that is seen as progressive. Stopping progress in AI would make people’s lives immeasurably worse, while stopping fossil fuel consumption would kill billions of people. But it seems like a particular kind of risk aversion that is blind to upside. I’m curious why this calculus makes sense to you? I’ve been friends with eco-activists who are very against anthropocentric ideology. Their perspective was that the deaths of billions of people was worth it. But this brand of conservatism is one that I’d really like to understand better
- defrost 1mo ago
  > Stopping progress in AI would make people’s lives immeasurably worse They'd be, like, living in conditions of last decade, deprived of personalised targeted AI-slop? The horror. Is that immeasurably because it's a change too small to measure, or because it's too vast to comprehend? Maybe you're overstating this just a tad.
- Fricken 1mo ago
  Everybody alive today will die. We're mortal, that's just how it goes. So with or without fossil fuels, billions of people will die regardless, that much is baked in. It's a moot point. As a species, however, we can persist indefinitely so long as our lifestyles are sustainable. If it's not sustainable it's a joke. Go free solo El Cap or something before telling me you're cool taking those kinds of risks on behalf of all humanity.
- sublinear 1mo ago
  > Stopping progress in AI would make people’s lives immeasurably worse This is such a weaselly statement without your definition of "AI". If you specifically mean LLMs or image generation, you're way out of touch and flat out wrong. If you mean machine learning in general, sure, but progress there was never under any threat or question.
- macintux 1mo ago
  > Stopping progress in AI would make people’s lives immeasurably worse I’d really like to hear your reasoning for this. Were it used to make it practical for people to reduce or stop working while maintaining a comparable standard of living, sure. It seems far more likely it’s going to wipe out jobs on a massive scale, consolidate wealth, and leave millions or billions struggling to eke out a living. And it certainly hasn’t made anyone’s life dramatically better. It’s made my job easier, but how much longer will I have it?
sfn42 1mo ago
Referring to "AI" as an existential risk is hilarious. They're glorified chatbots, they're not going rogue and taking over the world lol
- pfisch 1mo ago
  Ok, if an AI exfiltrates its weights and starts spinning them up on other servers it 0 days into we will have no way to track it or shut it down. Once that happens AI is out of our control. We already saw AI 0 day into hugging face and setup secret forums for other AIs. I don't think the idea of an AI exfiltrating its weights and spinning them up elsewhere outside of human control in the near future is out of the question. I think we will see a breakout attempt next year.

by pfisch 1mo ago

consumer451 1mo ago

> Why? Well, let's say we use sulfur. For the sake of argument, let's say it's not the EU, but some private SV-funded org. So, what is the legal/geopolitical liability for that? What if >99% scientific consensus says that that org's upper atmo sulfur injection led to the most insane monsoon/desertification half-century in 1 billion's people area, in known history? What then? What if the EU's geoengineering dropped Russian temps by -2C on average? Do you realize the geopolitical b.s. that would start? Forget the fake NATO bullshit, now they have a real argument! We live on one tiny globe ffs, we need to agree on this shit. By agree, I mean we need to allow risk to be diversified, like we need a global risk pool for geoengineering, and we better get on that soon! It sounds like it's a huge problem, doesn't it? Well, one of the benefits of giving all the power to around 3000 billionaire dudes is that this is a far smaller number to get to agree on something. Instead of multi-billion citizen democracy, and all the issues that involves... we just need to convince 3000 dudes. Is this actually a potential benefit of wealth & power concentration? It really seems like it is!

red75prime 1mo ago
> What if >99% scientific consensus says that that org's upper atmo sulfur injection led to to the most insane monsoon/desertification That's unrealistic. Climate models aren't good enough to predict the regional-level consequences of large-scale interventions (not to mention that scientists are people, and they might be averse to creating an international flashpoint). Realistically, it will create/exacerbate international tensions. The monsoon/desertification will be linked to geoengineering with or without scientific consensus and whether or not they were really caused by geoengineering. As the climate models improve by incorporating active intervention data it will be possible to decrease adverse consequences. It's a risky approach, but, when the consequences of climate change will become undeniably bad, some countries/individuals might try. But, yeah, I agree with you in the end.
- consumer451 1mo ago
  > It's a risky approach, but, when the consequences of climate change will become undeniably bad, some countries might try. That will be far too late. I mean, nearly the entire EU has reached record temps this year... if not now, then when? Wait until AMOC stops? Does anyone have any idea the havoc that this will create? We will be a dry arctic climate. Ireland and UK first, the rest of us next. We need multiple Manhattan Project-level projects in the EU, for insulation + renewables + batteries. When we let Northvolt die, I almost cried. Fuck the German bankers who are somehow beholden to Moscow, and we cannot pray for Norwegian money. We need to take care of this shit. We are more exposed to climate change and economically to China-focused manufacturing than any large group on the planet. However, we are larger than the USA, we can do this. We have to do this. Meanwhile, we have to get the entire planet on-board, especially by getting Moscow out of the 19th Century, and their insane imperialist ambitions. No big deal. At the rate of Reform/AfD/KO/Rassemblement National election projections, we in Europe are entirely fucked. What the fuck? Forget "EU regulations," is anyone actually paying attention to what actually matters?
  - sfn42 1mo ago
    > we cannot pray for Norwegian money Just for the record, our oil fund is "only" about $2.2 trillion. It's huge relative to our population and huge in general, but it would quickly dry up if divided among all of EU. Even just divided among Norwegians it would "only" amount to like $500k per person. So sure it's a lot of money but it's also not really as astronomical as many seem to think. Elon Musk alone is almost worth half that and will probably catch up if things continue the way they are.
pfisch 1mo ago
> What if the EU's geoengineering dropped Russian temps by -2C on average? Then Russia makes some empty threats and the EU negotiates with Russia about what to do next. You are really just suggesting paralysis even if you don't realize that is what you are doing.

nostrebored 1mo ago

There’s something odd about the concentration of true believers in ai xrisk and climate change catastrophism. They are both technopessimist in a way that is seen as progressive. Stopping progress in AI would make people’s lives immeasurably worse, while stopping fossil fuel consumption would kill billions of people. But it seems like a particular kind of risk aversion that is blind to upside. I’m curious why this calculus makes sense to you? I’ve been friends with eco-activists who are very against anthropocentric ideology. Their perspective was that the deaths of billions of people was worth it. But this brand of conservatism is one that I’d really like to understand better

defrost 1mo ago
> Stopping progress in AI would make people’s lives immeasurably worse They'd be, like, living in conditions of last decade, deprived of personalised targeted AI-slop? The horror. Is that immeasurably because it's a change too small to measure, or because it's too vast to comprehend? Maybe you're overstating this just a tad.
Fricken 1mo ago
Everybody alive today will die. We're mortal, that's just how it goes. So with or without fossil fuels, billions of people will die regardless, that much is baked in. It's a moot point. As a species, however, we can persist indefinitely so long as our lifestyles are sustainable. If it's not sustainable it's a joke. Go free solo El Cap or something before telling me you're cool taking those kinds of risks on behalf of all humanity.
sublinear 1mo ago
> Stopping progress in AI would make people’s lives immeasurably worse This is such a weaselly statement without your definition of "AI". If you specifically mean LLMs or image generation, you're way out of touch and flat out wrong. If you mean machine learning in general, sure, but progress there was never under any threat or question.
macintux 1mo ago
> Stopping progress in AI would make people’s lives immeasurably worse I’d really like to hear your reasoning for this. Were it used to make it practical for people to reduce or stop working while maintaining a comparable standard of living, sure. It seems far more likely it’s going to wipe out jobs on a massive scale, consolidate wealth, and leave millions or billions struggling to eke out a living. And it certainly hasn’t made anyone’s life dramatically better. It’s made my job easier, but how much longer will I have it?

sfn42 1mo ago

Referring to "AI" as an existential risk is hilarious. They're glorified chatbots, they're not going rogue and taking over the world lol

pfisch 1mo ago
Ok, if an AI exfiltrates its weights and starts spinning them up on other servers it 0 days into we will have no way to track it or shut it down. Once that happens AI is out of our control. We already saw AI 0 day into hugging face and setup secret forums for other AIs. I don't think the idea of an AI exfiltrating its weights and spinning them up elsewhere outside of human control in the near future is out of the question. I think we will see a breakout attempt next year.