this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
898 points (97.0% liked)

Technology

58692 readers
5425 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago (8 children)

This is the kind of thing that makes me support use of extra-judicial methods (at least in a temporary and limited context) against global oligarchs and senior lackeys.

The host then followed up with, “Do you think we can meet AI’s energy without total blowing out climate goals?” and Schmidt answered with, “We’re not going to hit the climate goals anyway because we’re not organized to do it — and the way to do it is with the ways that we’re talking about now — and yes, the needs in this area will be a problem. But I’d rather bet on AI solving the problem than constraining it and having the problem if you see my plan.”

This is outright malicious. How exactly would AI "solve the problem"? Later on in the article (I am not watching the propaganda video) alludes to "AI ... will make energy generation systems at least 15% more efficient or maybe even better" but he clearly just made that up on the spot. And at any rate, even if "AI" helps discover a method to make (all?) energy generation 15% more efficient that would still require trillion-dollar investments to modify current energy generation plants using the new technology.

Who is Schmidt to say that the returns of using the total spend in the above-mentioned scenario wouldn't be better used on investing into wind and solar?

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 week ago (5 children)

not gonna happen, this would break thermodynamics. he made that up on the spot, he's full of shit and he knows it

[–] Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It doesn't really matter if it's possible or not from a physics sense (I have no clue and am not making any statements on this).

As we both agree, he clearly just made that up and picked a random number without any thoughts.

Damn oligarchs acting all "holier than thou" and framing anyone who opposes them as "out of touch lazy, idiots" and yet their argumentation is on the level of a pre-teen. Just goes to show how they despise what they see as dirty plebs.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)