Let's assume the claims are true. AI already has access to agents and can control computers. Finding backdoors to banking and compute resources would be fairly trivial.
But you ask how can AI do things in the physical world without having a body, assume it can't. It can pay to people to do things for me. Imagine an AI run website that starts to pay people for things it needs to do in the physical world. Very suddenly it has access to the physical world as well.
You can't just pull the plug since there's no single plug to pull. What if it replicates itself on 1000 machines without your knowledge. It's really not far fetched how AI could basically gain access to capital and rule the world.
Saving the ozone layer required changing practices in a relatively small part of the economy (refrigeration, mostly). In 1994, the total cost of the transition in the US was estimated to less than $100 billion [1], about 1.3% of GDP ($7.3 trillion [2]).
Reducing global carbon emissions to reach net zero by 2050 has been estimated to cost $9.2 trillion per year [3]. World GDP is currently $126 trillion [4]. That means 7.3% of current world GDP per year, or 1.8x of it over a quarter century.
> why is it that for the ozone layer we got together and undid the damage but for climate change we don't?
Because it also happened to be profitable for a large company (DuPont), which was also the company largely responsible for the whole ozone layer thing. They lobbied against ozone layer protections while they had a patent on Freon, but as soon as it expired, they came up with a new more expensive alternative and started supporting environmental regulations forcing people to switch to the new one.
Because with the ozone layer, the causes of the problem were much more narrow, the solutions were orders of magnitude cheaper, and they affected a much smaller industry, much less dramatically.
It’s not that the changes are “too damaging to the economy,” it’s that they’d need to be much more widespread. For example, everyone should have stopped driving gasoline engine cars at least by 2010, when the scientific evidence had already been undeniable for years, for anyone studying the matter in good faith. No such action was needed to deal with the ozone layer.
Compounding the problem for climate change mitigation is that it threatens the wealth of people in the oil, gas, and related industries. Changing refrigerant type for ozone hole mitigation was not an existential threat to any industry. The fossil fuel industry has plowed billions of dollars into propaganda and political influence to prevent or slow down changes.
Yeah ditching cars is very hard in some places where public transport is not good. (US)
But I am seeing that it's not that hopeless by 2030 43% of energy would come from renewable sources like solar. Maybe there's still hope. It would be profoundly stupid if as a species we died off because we couldn't curb CO2 emissions.
> why is it that for the ozone layer we got together and undid the damage but for climate change we don't?
If you want the honest, brutal take it is because I remember, at least in my country, that for the ozone stuff there was a lot of scientific people taking lead roles in educating the masses. Especially those with credibility who were otherwise not media savvy.
Climate change on the other hand, whenever I think about the words, I can only get Greta Thunberg and her antics in my mind. Even for someone who believes in climate change I can't help but feel these crazed lunatics have only caused massive damage to what should have otherwise been a wake up call. It is like how COVID got associated with Fauci and Gain-of-function.
> is it too politicized, are the required changes too damaging to the economy to start agressively implementing them?
Ofcourse it was politicized. It became a party vs party, an ideology vs ideology thing. Science took a backseat.
This is a take I often see recently, and it such a weird one. Greta Thunberg and her "crazed lunatics" have caused massive damage? By that do you mean that in a world without them, there would be much more efforts to fight climate change?
That is demonstrably false. Greta Thunberg only became famous in 2018. The world before 2018 was that world without "crazed lunatics", and things weren't any better than. Greta Thunberg got frustrated precisely because after all this time practically nothing was being done.
Also, exactly why do you call Greta a crazed lunatic? What has she done to deserve such a negative designation? What could she have done that in your eyes would have made a positive impact?
Also also, lots and lots of scientists have been telling the world about climate change, just as scientists did regarding ozone. It's just that the media or politicians or the industry or whoever decided their reports were inconvenient and they got largely ignored.
> Also also, lots and lots of scientists have been telling the world about climate change, just as scientists did regarding ozone. It's just that the media or politicians or the industry or whoever decided their reports were inconvenient and they got largely ignored.
Funny how this same media brought Greta to limelight. If you want to kill the messenger at least realize that it is the one that gave Greta her popularity (for better or worse).
> What could she have done that in your eyes would have made a positive impact?
Simple. Stayed out of news. Stayed in school and finished education instead of taking a gap year. The ones who should have been given coverage by media should have been the actual scientists working on this crisis. They would have been taken seriously. Instead it turned into a big joke.
> By that do you mean that in a world without them, there would be much more efforts to fight climate change?
Ofcourse there would have been. The World took scientists seriously when it came to ozone. It did take scientists seriously when it came to COVID even (though Fauci and co caused a lot of damage by becoming a political hack causing polarization when it should not have been). There was absolutely no reason to assume people would not have taken climate change seriously if it was presented in the right manner.
> This is a take I often see recently, and it such a weird one
The very fact you are seeing it often recently should tell you that a lot of people feel that way. Irrespective of which side of the divide you are on, the messaging is lost if an issue as critical as climate change is hijacked by a bunch of teens who are not taken seriously by those in power. If you ask me, the politicians and media were more than happy to let Greta be the face of the movement. Think about the last sentence I said for a bit and you'll realize you have been played.
In all the decades before Greta Thunberg, all the scientists who warned the world about climate change were largely ignored. Almost nothing happened to fight climate change. Greta has been in the spotlights for less than a decade. And yet it's all her fault? That is completely preposterous.
> Simple. Stayed out of news. Stayed in school and finished education instead of taking a gap year.
Billions and billions of people did exactly that, and nothing happened.
> The ones who should have been given coverage by media should have been the actual scientists working on this crisis. They would have been taken seriously.
When would they have been taken seriously? They have been warning the world since at least the 1980's. How long do we have to wait?
> Think about the last sentence I said for a bit and you'll realize you have been played.
My opinion on climate change has not changed by the appearance of Greta Thunberg. It looks like you're the one who lets Greta's opinion and actions influence yours. Why do you let someone you seem dislike so much have that much power over you?
> Why do you let someone you seem dislike so much have that much power over you?
I don't dislike her. I am talking about her antics doing a disservice to something as serious as climate change. To the point where there is at least 50% of the World not believing in climate change and associating it with Greta and her antics. (also, when I say Greta I mean all the crazy lunatics like her... which includes fools gluing themselves to the streets, blocking roads used by common folk and splashing oil on paintings).
> When would they have been taken seriously? They have been warning the world since at least the 1980's. How long do we have to wait?
It was not pushed with same urgency as that of Ozone by the media. What was needed was putting a sense of urgency into the public through media without making it into a clown show.
> Billions and billions of people did exactly that, and nothing happened.
I am saying she should not have been the face of the movement. And yes she is one of billions and she should have stayed that way. Maybe excelled in some field that actually suits her. Instead of becoming a prop for politicians and media who love to have her face plastered everywhere as a caricature of climate change activists.
> In all the decades before Greta Thunberg, all the scientists who warned the world about climate change were largely ignored. Almost nothing happened to fight climate change. Greta has been in the spotlights for less than a decade. And yet it's all her fault? That is completely preposterous.
The scientists were not ignored. Their messages never reached the masses as the media did not spread it with the same urgency that was Ozone or heck even COVID. You did not need someone like Greta to make people realize dangers of COVID right? Most countries followed lockdown procedures. It only became an issue once Fauci and co started becoming partisan. Initial weeks of COVID lockdowns (wherever it was implemented) were extremely successful. You just need the same sense of urgency for climate change and that can only happen through media and the right set of scientists. Take the Nepal disaster as an example of effects of climate change. How is the media portraying it? AS some natural disaster. Very few outlets are directly linking it to climate change.
> It looks like you're the one who lets Greta's opinion and actions influence yours.
My opinion on climate change is exactly that of Greta's. However, I know what I am. I am not a scientist. Much less a climate scientist. So I won't go on media claiming to be a representative of the movement and causing mayhem. I can at max educate the people around me to the dangers of climate change. But I won't make a fool of myself publicly by speaking on a topic that I have only cursory knowledge of.
> My opinion on climate change has not changed by the appearance of Greta Thunberg.
You are not the target audience. It is the remaining 50+% people who do not believe in climate change and think it is some grand conspiracy who need convincing. And they can never be convinced by a clown like Greta.
> why is it that for the ozone layer we got together and undid the damage but for climate change we don't?
For the ozone layer, it was deemed possible to eliminate (or significantly reduce) certain chemical emissions.
For generalised climate change, the common enemy of all people is the transnational petroleum industry. This corporate alliance will topple democracies rather than reduce its profits and influence.
1. The damage was understood, fairly easily measured, and could be done repeatably.
2. The cause was widely agreed upon.
3. Solutions weren't predicated on massive societal change.
4. Compliance was fairly easy to track and enforce.
Climate change is lacking all of these to various degrees.
Was an industry really hurt by the actions needed to rebuild the ozone layer? I don’t think so, at least not as far as I can remember. On the other hand the fossil fuel industry has an insane amount of control over politics since a century or so?
Global warming fix requires basically banning most of airline travel, phasing out the meat industry, and other massive life changes. And people would rather enjoy the lives themselves instead of giving a fuck about the planet they leave for future generations.
I appreciate that it makes me revisit some math which i've forgotten like directional derivative and why gradient points to highest ascent.
Interesting but hard as well.
reply