I'm sorry, but there is no major decarbonization mystery for AI to solve for us. We have what we need today. This tired argument is just another repackaging of the oldest response to climate action. These people don't want to decarbonize, so they're pretending we don't already know how to do it.
Eric Schmidt says we’re not going to meet our climate targets, so we must put all our energy into improving AI and hope it solves the problem for us. He’s part of a growing chorus of tech billionaires openly admitting they’ll sacrifice the climate on the altar of their AI ambitions.
Eric Schmidt is the latest tech executive to claim AI must be built regardless of the climate cost
this really is an Underpants Gnomes situation 1. steal electricity and water 2. ? 3. less pollution
Turning it off
The first thing that the AI should identify is that AI needs eliminating because AI massively drives up energy demand.
I completely agree
Just need to cut some rentiers off from their rents.
The jig is sky high
Exactly
We were told by Eunice Newton Foote in 1856, weren't we? www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-...
Eunice Newton Foote showed that carbon dioxide traps the heat of the sun in 1856, beating the so-called father of the greenhouse effect by at least three years. Why was she forgotten?
I'm onboard with the circular economy, but circular logic? Not so much. AI is indeed the answer... to fast-racking our climate crisis. What about "nutrition labels" that illuminate how much energy is required for every query or generative junk that AI produces?
Another tech weirdo