3 ms·

Here's what I find invalid about environment angle. I fundamentally don't think it is wrong to increase emissions as long as you consider the tradeoffs and ext

Here's what I find invalid about environment angle. I fundamentally don't think it is wrong to increase emissions as long as you consider the tradeoffs and externalities. Every single action you do in life has externalities - if you start opposing all of them then what really is your point? You just hate people doing stuff. If you think emissions are so harmful, try putting a number to it. I implore you to do the exercise and convince yourself or me or others and suggest that the pros don't outweigh the cons. I'm half predicting that the conversation will end in dubious claims about tail risks and world itself collapsing (I hope you don't do that). I don't think AI is uniquely harmful for the environment given the value it provides. Hell, it can even contribute to accelerating renewable resources and increasing efficiencies overall. There's way more to lose by slowing down AI because of emission control than to gain by reducing emissions.

nateglims 1mo ago
You are making claims for why you think the emissions are worth it but I don't see how this makes concerns about emissions invalid. Even water usage, while blown out of proportion, can be a rational concern if you have a fossil fuel power station. You can just flip this around and ask why is slowing down AI to control emissions harmful? What numbers that don't make tail risk claims are you providing for this?
- simianwords 1mo ago
  wait, please stick to the argument. Why is increasing emissions bad while considering tradeoffs? >You can just flip this around and ask why is slowing down AI to control emissions harmful? What numbers that don't make tail risk claims are you providing for this? Slowing down reduces the value it provides to humans, that's clear to me and you I hope.
  - cccbbbaaa 1mo ago
    Our current emissions level is causing climate change.
    - simianwords 1mo ago
      Ok so you are against any type of action whatsoever? No matter how useful it is?
      - cccbbbaaa 1mo ago
        If they are strictly increasing our already unsustainable emissions level, yes. Eg. I am very much in favour of replacing coal and gas power stations with nuclear power stations, banning cars from city centres, etc.
        simianwords 1mo ago
        why do you think it is unsustainable?
        cccbbbaaa 1mo ago
        Refer to my first comment.
  - jplusequalt 1mo ago
    >Why is increasing emissions bad while considering tradeoffs? Because climate change stands to be the biggest market failure in history. You need to show that the rapid scale out of data centers is going to reasonably offset the current trajectory we're on.
    - simianwords 1mo ago
      > Because climate change stands to be the biggest market failure in history Proof?
      - jplusequalt 1mo ago
        “Climate change presents a unique challenge for economics: it is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen.” -- Nicholas Stern, Leading climate economist; former World Bank chief economist. “The ultimate commons problem of the twenty-first century—global climate change.” -- Robert Stavins, Harvard environmental economist and climate-policy expert. “Climate change, an externality that is unprecedentedly large, complex, and uncertain.” -- Richard Tol, Prominent economist specializing in climate-change impacts. “Climate change is a global public-goods externality whose formal resolution requires an unprecedented degree of international cooperation and coordination.” -- Martin Weitzman, Harvard economist; pioneering scholar of climate risk. “Climate change is the Colossus of all global public goods.” -- William Nordhaus, Nobel laureate and pioneer of climate economics. “The problem with climate change is that there’s a market failure.” -- Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate and former World Bank chief economist.
RetroTechie 1mo ago
> There's way more to lose by slowing down AI because of emission control than to gain by reducing emissions. If AI works out as proponents would make you believe, then either you'll see masses of people out of a job - for which society is unprepared. Or you'll see a big, society-wide productivity boost. Read: consuming non-renewable resources on this planet even faster (not just energy). Society as a whole would benefit if rollout would slow down. Give us time to reflect on those 2nd-order effects & how to address them. But instead we have the opposite: a crazy race with big AI labs trying to out-spend & out-do the other guy, ignoring externalities everywhere.

nateglims 1mo ago

You are making claims for why you think the emissions are worth it but I don't see how this makes concerns about emissions invalid. Even water usage, while blown out of proportion, can be a rational concern if you have a fossil fuel power station. You can just flip this around and ask why is slowing down AI to control emissions harmful? What numbers that don't make tail risk claims are you providing for this?

simianwords 1mo ago
wait, please stick to the argument. Why is increasing emissions bad while considering tradeoffs? >You can just flip this around and ask why is slowing down AI to control emissions harmful? What numbers that don't make tail risk claims are you providing for this? Slowing down reduces the value it provides to humans, that's clear to me and you I hope.
- cccbbbaaa 1mo ago
  Our current emissions level is causing climate change.
  - simianwords 1mo ago
    Ok so you are against any type of action whatsoever? No matter how useful it is?
    - cccbbbaaa 1mo ago
      If they are strictly increasing our already unsustainable emissions level, yes. Eg. I am very much in favour of replacing coal and gas power stations with nuclear power stations, banning cars from city centres, etc.
      - simianwords 1mo ago
        why do you think it is unsustainable?
        cccbbbaaa 1mo ago
        Refer to my first comment.
- jplusequalt 1mo ago
  >Why is increasing emissions bad while considering tradeoffs? Because climate change stands to be the biggest market failure in history. You need to show that the rapid scale out of data centers is going to reasonably offset the current trajectory we're on.
  - simianwords 1mo ago
    > Because climate change stands to be the biggest market failure in history Proof?
    - jplusequalt 1mo ago
      “Climate change presents a unique challenge for economics: it is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen.” -- Nicholas Stern, Leading climate economist; former World Bank chief economist. “The ultimate commons problem of the twenty-first century—global climate change.” -- Robert Stavins, Harvard environmental economist and climate-policy expert. “Climate change, an externality that is unprecedentedly large, complex, and uncertain.” -- Richard Tol, Prominent economist specializing in climate-change impacts. “Climate change is a global public-goods externality whose formal resolution requires an unprecedented degree of international cooperation and coordination.” -- Martin Weitzman, Harvard economist; pioneering scholar of climate risk. “Climate change is the Colossus of all global public goods.” -- William Nordhaus, Nobel laureate and pioneer of climate economics. “The problem with climate change is that there’s a market failure.” -- Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate and former World Bank chief economist.

RetroTechie 1mo ago

> There's way more to lose by slowing down AI because of emission control than to gain by reducing emissions. If AI works out as proponents would make you believe, then either you'll see masses of people out of a job - for which society is unprepared. Or you'll see a big, society-wide productivity boost. Read: consuming non-renewable resources on this planet even faster (not just energy). Society as a whole would benefit if rollout would slow down. Give us time to reflect on those 2nd-order effects & how to address them. But instead we have the opposite: a crazy race with big AI labs trying to out-spend & out-do the other guy, ignoring externalities everywhere.