ChronoPsyche t1_ix2iypq wrote
The issue is that our climate models are a lot more reliable than anyone's guess on when the Singularity will happen and what will happen when it does.
We as a society have a responsibility to prepare for the future and it would be extremely reckless to just put all our eggs in the Singularity basket and say "eh fuck it, the Singularity will save us".
If it turns out that the Singularity occurs before we solve climate change and then it solves it for us, then cool, that's great. But if that doesn't happen, then we want to make sure we've still been making progress.
HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_ix2quot wrote
The Singularity gets here by technological progress, which everyone is working on in some form or another due to the law of accelerating returns. The Intelligence Explosion will happen when it happens, nobody is really putting any eggs in any baskets when it comes it the Singularity.
What you’re probably referring to is research into AGI, in which case I’d agree. But transhumanism as a whole seeks to solve any issue persisting in front of us as a species, including climate change. It’s already the case that our species is working on solving many different problems with many different methods, it’s not like only one thing is improving.
ChronoPsyche t1_ix2s0tk wrote
I was responding to OP who was basically making the point that we don't need to worry about climate change because AGI will be trillions of times smarter than humans by 2050 (paraphrased). My point was that we do need to worry about it and do something about it with whatever methods we have available (which right now is mainly just limiting emissions and transitioning to a green economy) rather than just assuming the Singularity will save us. I don't disagree with what you said, it just is misinterpreting what the point of my comment is. You're right that I was talking about AGI, because thats what OP was talking about.
I dont blame you if you didn't read his post though. It was a bit of a mess.
HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_ix300u2 wrote
Yeah, the idea of dropping all the research out of other fields of science is silly. It’s not like the people in that field would even have the qualifications to work in Machine Learning.
Five_Decades t1_ix4cwy7 wrote
> which everyone is working on in some form or another due to the law of accelerating returns.
I'm not seeing accelerating returns. Yes hardware is growing exponentially which is great. But that doesn't translate into exponential or even linear growth in technology that benefits the human race. Technology as it is applied isn't much better than it was a decade ago despite hardware being 1000x better.
QuietOil9491 t1_ix3vapc wrote
This ignores the fact that humans usually use new technology to kill massive amounts of humans before they use it to help other humans
SoylentRox t1_ix49fll wrote
So I also see it from the OP's perspective because...we don't need sentient AGI trillions of times smarter to solve climate change.
All we need is narrow AI that you can go look at papers demoing the results right now. And it just needs to be a little better and used to drive robots, which various startups are doing right now.
So the speculation is not "some day sentient AGI", it's "robots in the lab that work now will work a bit better, such that they can automate most tasks that robots are capable of performing now."
Why is it important for better robots to do tasks that you could use a current gen robot to do? Simple. If the robots are a little smarter with narrow AI they can do a lot greater breadth of tasks. Instead of electronics factories having robots do 80% of the work they do 100%. Instead of mines having mining equipment doing 80% of the work driven by human operators it's 100%. And so on.
This solves climate change.
It gives you several obvious tools:
​
- It doesn't matter if cities are too close to the sea when it rises - these robots can be used to make modular subunits for new buildings, robotruck them to a site, and lift them into place. You could build an entire new city in months.
- It doesn't matter if arable land gets scarce - self contained farms built and run by robots
- It doesn't matter if the equator gets uninhabitable - robots go down there and get resources while people live at northern latitudes
- We can build CO2 gathering systems and cover the sahara desert with solar panels to power them. Robots make this feasible since they do 99.9% of the labor of manufacturing, deploying, wiring up, and maintaining the panels. A sahara covered in solar is about enough energy gathering to thermodynamically reverse the last 200 years of combustion to gain energy.
The OP is right. We wouldn't be sitting helpless. Even if there is no sentience, and the tools are simply made production grade from what we already know works right now today.
Lone-Pine t1_ix7cuea wrote
> our climate models are a lot more reliable than anyone's guess on when the Singularity will happen
I'm pretty sure our climate models are saying that climate change is going to be manage-ably mild.
cypherl t1_ix53law wrote
Your phrase solve climate change makes me interested. I live in a spot of North America that had a 1000 feet of ice over it 10,000 years ago. CO2 levels have been many times higher and many times lower historically. I guess my question is do I have to live on a glacier when you're done solving climate?
ChronoPsyche t1_ix54iau wrote
The issue with modern climate change is how fast it is happening compared to natural climate change. It is simply occurring too fast for humans to properly adapt. It is occuring at an exponential rate similar to the singularity, actually, and once we reach the point of no return feedback loops will happen where shit will get real, real fast.
As far as living on a glacier, can't tell if you're serious or not. Solving climate change doesn't mean cooling the planet, it means preventing the warming from getting out of control.
cypherl t1_ix56nxg wrote
I am serious about glaciers. I think you have a good point on the speed. I'm just not sure if dropping us to 200 parts per million for CO2, like that last ice age solves it.
ChronoPsyche t1_ix58csz wrote
Nobody is suggesting dropping us to 200 ppm. The ideal CO2 concentration is considered to be between 280 (preindustrial levels) and low 300s. It would be absolutely safe to drop to those levels.
However, even if we stopped all carbon emissions immidiately, it would take thousands of years to return to those levels naturally.
That's not what "solving climate change" is about. It's about slowing the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to levels that are more manageable and to levels that we can more easily adapt to.
If we continue with the current level of emissions we will eventually hit a runaway effect where natural feedback loops are triggered and the effects of climate change accelerate to disastrous levels very quickly and become nearly impossible to stop. That is what we are trying to prevent by lowering emission levels.
No scientists actually believe we can turn back warming in the near and medium term future. That ship sailed long ago. So don't worry, if you aren't living on a glacier right now you won't be in the future either.
cypherl t1_ix5ann9 wrote
Where does the runaway effect take place? 50 million years ago primates existed and we were at 1,000 parts per million. Is it something like 2000 parts per million that really kicks it over?
Ineedanameforthis35 t1_ix56kdh wrote
Solving climate change means going back to pre industrial CO2 levels, so unless your area was a glacier 300 years ago you are fine.
cypherl t1_ix581ya wrote
I think you are correct but for a different reason. The Earth has been losing glaciers for the last 10,000 years. Going back to 300 parts per million CO2 wouldn't change that I suppose. So I would still be safe from glaciers. If we do make it to singularity I look forward to global warming the hack out of Mars
Danger-Dom t1_ix3js2r wrote
Our climate models are reliable for a world without progressing technology, they take into account a subsystem of the world without integrating the rest. This is why forecasts are so often wrong and humans are so bad at it.
Note: This is true of all forecasting in non isolated systems, not ragging on climate forecasts specifically.
Id prefer to believe in a simpler and more general forecast such as growth of computation, which shows a consistent and predictable rise over the years.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments