• @Modva@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    545 months ago

    We’re not going to hit those targets anyway… SO LET’S MAKE IT WAY FUCKING WORSE

    I wonder if we’ll ever get to the place where people like this unexpectedly meet violent ends. They’ll sacrifice any number of lives for their shareholders interests.

    • @dai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      95 months ago

      “You see, killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down.”

  • guldukat
    link
    fedilink
    English
    35 months ago

    Give the ring to Boromir, he will know what’s best

  • @JollyG@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    835 months ago

    Former CEO of the river poisoning company says there is no way to meet our river poison reduction goals, so we might as well build bigger river poisoning machines because they might help us figure out how to stop poisoning the river. /s

    I feel like there was a time when the tech folks in silicon valley had a lot of credibility, and we are now living in a period where most of the world sees them as a joke but that fact has not yet entered into the culture of silicon valley.

    • @kaffiene@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      235 months ago

      Similar thing happened to the games industry as well, I think. Initially it was creative people and engineers who were focused on what they were making. These days the industry is dominated by suits that just want to extract as much cash as possible from players.

      • @Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        135 months ago

        It went from niche hobby, to large secondary media market, to the largest entertainment industry in history. Game companies are, as you brought up, no longer being run by people interested in video games. While a lot of the talent they hire, are still people who are passionate about video games, a lot of them are, just people who learned a skill, in order to have a productive career. The latter is becoming a larger, and larger, percentage of the people actually making video games. Video games are just another industry now. Just like any other, they exist to make money, and the people who work for them are people who just want a pay check.

        The indie development scene is the only hope really, for people who don’t want the top 40 pop charts version of games.

      • @derpgon@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        35 months ago

        And it finally, after all those years, took the toll. Ubisoft crashed hard and hopefully they burn and fizzle out like a wet fart they are, all of the people starting with lower management and up gets yeeted, and maybe the next owner in line will have more brains and listen to the community.

        Don’t get me wrong, I haven’t bought or played their games for the past 10 years, with exception of the first The Division, but I’ve been following their death spiral for the last few years and I am glad it finally showed on a company. But we need more examples.

        • @kaffiene@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          15 months ago

          Agreed. They’ve been making shit games with great production values. I think they’d be better making animated films than games

  • @TotalCasual@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    65 months ago

    This is like Satan saying “We’re not going to be able to deal with mass corruption. Just burn everything. That’s the solution.”

    That’s an interesting idea… Satan…

    • @ratel@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      25 months ago

      I imagine the likely conclusion of it would come up with would be something like “decrease the size of the human population”.

    • @Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      65 months ago

      Oh to hear the AI give us the “well I guess you should have thought of THAT before you did something WRONG” line that some humans use to dehumanize others.

    • @sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      18
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      100% this. We fucking know what the solution is. AI will reach the same conclusion as we have; decarbonise everything. It’s the implementation that’s hard, not the idea.

  • @finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    35 months ago

    AI Datacenters are on course to consume an increase in power more than the current consumption of the nation of Japan.

    AI already consume more power than crypto.

    They’re the opposite of a solution to climate change, they’re a slow fire that will consume all.

    And what have the LLMs produced? Jack fucking shit: just a lot of IP theft, research fraud, and worsening customer service.

    • @njordomir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      35 months ago

      Seriously, we’re killing the earth so a robot named Josh can cosplay severe auditory processing disorder in a bid to irritate me enough to give up on my custom service call.

  • @A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    235 months ago

    AI: “The only way to solve climate change is to do what the scientists said 30 years ago. My existence is the flame that consumes the earth”

  • @cley_faye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    75 months ago

    AI will not find a magic solution. Besides, we already have quite a few directions that would help, but we’re not acting on them. Pilling more “solutions” over them won’t change that.

    This really sounds like the parody of rich people that think they can eat and breath safely as long as they have money, the rest of the world be damned.

  • @Sakychu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    115 months ago

    We used a small tons worth of electricity to come up with the idea that we should pump less co2 into the atmosphere

  • Alphane MoonOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    315 months ago

    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?

    • IndiBrony
      link
      fedilink
      English
      85 months ago

      He’ll be happy to let AI solve it until AI suggests we should eat the rich and distribute the wealth…

      • @floofloof@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        25 months ago

        I’d be surprised if they haven’t already put in constraints to prevent it recommending we abolish capitalism.

        • @skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          5
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          CCGTs have efficiencies in the range of 60%-ish percent. bringing it up to 85% would mean that now these run almost at carnot efficiency taking adiabatic flame temperature of methane burning in air as upper and practical temperatures of heatsink (60C) as lower. this is not happening, because other cycles with lower efficiencies are used in practice

          if you want to improve efficiency of power generation, just replace old junk with new kit, or better yet, build nuclear and renewables where efficiency matters less when considering emissions. you know what, damn i do think that lying box burning enough electricity to power a small country (like macedonia) could come up with this

          • @Eheran@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Who said that they only improve the most modern plants? And why not by using the heat too? And only those burning NG? Why not nuclear, solar, wind etc.? As stupid as such a random made up number is, it is possible, given how vague it is.

            • @skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              because these end up generating most of electricity. older plants matter less specifically because these are less efficient - operating them means more fuel costs per MWh. normally, you can see new flashy plants generating all the time it’s practical, because these are more efficient, have less maintenance downtime etc and when demand grows, progressively less efficient units start generating coming from spinning reserve. the two exceptions are NPPs which are best operated at constant high power because of their neutron physics and renewables that are literal free energy so everything they do is taken in. the only place where you can improve efficiency of NPPs is in turbine, and that probably is pretty well optimized unless turbine is very old, because increasing steam temperature would mean changed conditions in reactor in way that could happen to be out of spec. we have figured out wind power pretty well, and perovskites aren’t a thing, and won’t be a thing until they become more durable, which they won’t. in all cases, upgrades would have to make sense both economically and/or in emission costs. this includes CHP and laying municipal heating grids, and good luck with that with how dysfunctional american local govts are (where probably biggest emission gains from CHP could be made)

              you can redo this for other types of thermal powerplants and come to the same conclusion. if you say that saltman&co and his assemblage of lying machines can outsmart thousands of turbine engineers, you might be a shill for making other people believe that or a moron for believing that yourself

      • Alphane MoonOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        7
        edit-2
        5 months 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.