WWTBAM Bored

The problem with treating global warming as THE existential threat.

I have long thought that the problem with treating global warming as THE existential threat is that it sucked all the air out of the room from other conservation and environmental issues.

However, it dawned on me last night that the real problem with treating global warming as THE existential threat is that it also sucks the air out from the room for other existential threats such as Artificial Intelligence and Nanotechnology and Bioengineering.

I have been reading a lot on AI lately (both pro and con) and the main over-arching thought that strikes me is that those actually working on AI (wherever they might be) are so enamored with the technology that they are paying little or no attention to the risks.

Those risks deserve at least as much attention as global warming.

Simply put, we have time with global warming, we don't have time with AI.

Even under a best case scenario, I don't see much room for humanity or nature in this AI, nano and bioengineered world that we creating as fast as we possibly can.

"Full speed ahead; Damn the consequences."

Spock wrote:Simply put, we have time with global warming, we don't have time with AI.

That's exactly backwards. We're still a long way from actual AI. But it's already too late to avoid many severe effects of global warming, and the longer we continue to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere without concern, the deeper the hole we are digging ourselves. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:Simply put, we have time with global warming, we don't have time with AI.

That's exactly backwards. We're still a long way from actual AI. But it's already too late to avoid many severe effects of global warming, and the longer we continue to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere without concern, the deeper the hole we are digging ourselves. --Bob

The good news is that after mankind is wiped out, AI will continue our knowledge.

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:Simply put, we have time with global warming, we don't have time with AI.

That's exactly backwards. We're still a long way from actual AI. But it's already too late to avoid many severe effects of global warming, and the longer we continue to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere without concern, the deeper the hole we are digging ourselves. --Bob

According to Al Gore, we should already be dead, but AOC gives us, what? eleven more years?

Of course, only America's greenhouse gasses do any harm. China and India's? No problemo!

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:Simply put, we have time with global warming, we don't have time with AI.

That's exactly backwards. We're still a long way from actual AI. But it's already too late to avoid many severe effects of global warming, and the longer we continue to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere without concern, the deeper the hole we are digging ourselves. --Bob

According to Al Gore, we should already be dead, but AOC gives us, what? eleven more years?

Of course, only America's greenhouse gasses do any harm. China and India's? No problemo!

Are you denying there's a problem or are you just saying we should ignore it because you think other countries also are ignoring it? Neither suggestion seems practical. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:That's exactly backwards. We're still a long way from actual AI. But it's already too late to avoid many severe effects of global warming, and the longer we continue to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere without concern, the deeper the hole we are digging ourselves. --Bob

According to Al Gore, we should already be dead, but AOC gives us, what? eleven more years?

Of course, only America's greenhouse gasses do any harm. China and India's? No problemo!

Are you denying there's a problem or are you just saying we should ignore it because you think other countries also are ignoring it? Neither suggestion seems practical. --Bob

I am not denying that there MAY be a problem, but I think the main problem is the politics behind the issue.
I mention China and India to point out the hypocrisy of the politics.
The issue has been discussed here at length, so you can now call me your names, which is your main debating technique.

Next neverending thread.

So Bob. Will you be advocating against, for example, Chinese contribution to pollution and AI shenanigans as avidly as you advocate against Bored supposed bigotry?
https://www.technologyreview.com/f/6129 ... -use-artif

Beebs52 wrote:So Bob. Will you be advocating against, for example, Chinese contribution to pollution and AI shenanigans as avidly as you advocate against Bored supposed bigotry?
https://www.technologyreview.com/f/6129 ... -use-artif

Well, those are not approved causes, so he can't go all in on them. But he will be slightly concerned.

Beebs52 wrote:So Bob. Will you be advocating against, for example, Chinese contribution to pollution and AI shenanigans as avidly as you advocate against Bored supposed bigotry?
https://www.technologyreview.com/f/6129 ... -use-artif

The Chinese leaders have apparently never watched any of the Terminator movies.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
According to Al Gore, we should already be dead, but AOC gives us, what? eleven more years?

Of course, only America's greenhouse gasses do any harm. China and India's? No problemo!

Are you denying there's a problem or are you just saying we should ignore it because you think other countries also are ignoring it? Neither suggestion seems practical. --Bob

I am not denying that there MAY be a problem, but I think the main problem is the politics behind the issue.
I mention China and India to point out the hypocrisy of the politics.
The issue has been discussed here at length, so you can now call me your names, which is your main debating technique.

By the time you're willing to agree that there actually is a problem, it will be far too late to fix the problem. Kind of like waiting until your cancer reaches Stage 4 before admitting that maybe you should see the doctor. (And we're already at Stage 3.)

Not much I can do about China or India until we have a rational foreign policy that permits us to exert pressure on them to impose greenhouse gas limits. Donny has no interest in that subject, and the damage he's done to American ability to exert leadership on this issue will take a long time to repair. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Are you denying there's a problem or are you just saying we should ignore it because you think other countries also are ignoring it? Neither suggestion seems practical. --Bob

I am not denying that there MAY be a problem, but I think the main problem is the politics behind the issue.
I mention China and India to point out the hypocrisy of the politics.
The issue has been discussed here at length, so you can now call me your names, which is your main debating technique.

By the time you're willing to agree that there actually is a problem, it will be far too late to fix the problem. Kind of like waiting until your cancer reaches Stage 4 before admitting that maybe you should see the doctor. (And we're already at Stage 3.)

Not much I can do about China or India until we have a rational foreign policy that permits us to exert pressure on them to impose greenhouse gas limits. Donny has no interest in that subject, and the damage he's done to American ability to exert leadership on this issue will take a long time to repair. --Bob

Tell us again how well that went in previous admini......never mind climate warrior.

And, do we have to ask agaiiin...have you given up your fossil fuel produced phone and computer and vaseline and...

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
I am not denying that there MAY be a problem, but I think the main problem is the politics behind the issue.
I mention China and India to point out the hypocrisy of the politics.
The issue has been discussed here at length, so you can now call me your names, which is your main debating technique.

By the time you're willing to agree that there actually is a problem, it will be far too late to fix the problem. Kind of like waiting until your cancer reaches Stage 4 before admitting that maybe you should see the doctor. (And we're already at Stage 3.)

Not much I can do about China or India until we have a rational foreign policy that permits us to exert pressure on them to impose greenhouse gas limits. Donny has no interest in that subject, and the damage he's done to American ability to exert leadership on this issue will take a long time to repair. --Bob

Tell us again how well that went in previous admini......never mind climate warrior.

The Paris accords were a good start. Unilaterally withdrawing from them was a huge step backwards. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:By the time you're willing to agree that there actually is a problem, it will be far too late to fix the problem. Kind of like waiting until your cancer reaches Stage 4 before admitting that maybe you should see the doctor. (And we're already at Stage 3.)

Not much I can do about China or India until we have a rational foreign policy that permits us to exert pressure on them to impose greenhouse gas limits. Donny has no interest in that subject, and the damage he's done to American ability to exert leadership on this issue will take a long time to repair. --Bob

Tell us again how well that went in previous admini......never mind climate warrior.

The Paris accords were a good start. Unilaterally withdrawing from them was a huge step backwards. --Bob

No.

Beebs52 wrote:And, do we have to ask agaiiin...have you given up your fossil fuel produced phone and computer and vaseline and...

The problem (from this perspective) isn't the use of oil (although we will run out of the stuff at some point). The problem is burning it, which is what releases more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. I have no idea how much renewable energy was used to create my phone and my computer. And neither do you. But I do know that for nearly 30 years I've been driving cars that consistently get better than 40 mpg.

We can do a lot more than we have been to assist production of renewable energy. For starters, we could end the tax subsidies that we're still providing for fossil fuels. It's not as though they need those subsidies to remain profitable. And if they do, then we're distorting the economy's price signals in a way that makes no sense at all. --Bob

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote: Tell us again how well that went in previous admini......never mind climate warrior.

The Paris accords were a good start. Unilaterally withdrawing from them was a huge step backwards. --Bob

No.

Yes.

Neener neener. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:The Paris accords were a good start. Unilaterally withdrawing from them was a huge step backwards. --Bob

No.

Yes.

Neener neener. --Bob

Good luck with that. No.

Beebs52 wrote:Next neverending thread.

Hey! That’s my thing!

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:Next neverending thread.

Hey! That’s my thing!

And almost appropriate, less the AI. Gotta love it.

This thread 100 percent illustrated my point in my original post-as I knew it would.

It immediately jumped to global warming with barely a nod to AI, Nano or bioengineering.

Beebs52 wrote:And, do we have to ask agaiiin...have you given up your fossil fuel produced phone and computer and vaseline and...

Don't give up the Vaseline!

christie1111 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:And, do we have to ask agaiiin...have you given up your fossil fuel produced phone and computer and vaseline and...

Don't give up the Vaseline!

Aquaphor is good, too. Is that blasphemy?

Spock wrote:This thread 100 percent illustrated my point in my original post-as I knew it would.

It immediately jumped to global warming with barely a nod to AI, Nano or bioengineering.

Pope Francis (a leader on climate change) is also aware of the treat of AI.

Vatican conference on robotics and artificial intelligence