For a Thing That Will Supposedly Fix the Climate, AI Sure Needs a Lot of Fossil Fuels

www.splinter.com For a Thing That Will Supposedly Fix the Climate, AI Sure Needs a Lot of Fossil Fuels

Splinter is your home for news and opinions that challenge power in our political and economic system that's becoming more unhinged each and every day.

16 comments

AI was never going to save the climate. Its meant to give elites even more control over the population

32
Anyone who believes it's going to take AI to find out fossil fuels are killing us all rapidly is a complete fucking moron.

17
5 years ago: "We really need to be careful with AI, it might turn everything into paperclips!!!"

Now:" AI needs paperclips to run so we need to destroy our planet and turn it into paperclips for AI"

Drexler must be rolling in his grave.

16
Will Supposedly Fix the Climate

Uhh... wut?

1
AI won't fix the climate, but it also doesn't need fossil fuels either.

1
And that’s why we need nuclear

-5
- OR..."and that's why we don't need AI"
  
  10
  
  Not to the degree in which your random smart lightbulbs company has now packaged a poorly shipped “AI” product for the sake of capitalizing on the hype. However, leveraging LLMs has its rewards too. Anecdotally, it has 10x my ability at rapid prototyping. In other examples, I’ve seen it help discover new pathways to better medicines and diagnose diseases more accurately. There’s pros and cons, like anything.
  
  3
- Plants that take ten years to build don’t seem like a very good response to a boom that measures dataceneter build time in months and will probably collapse in a year or two as hype is replaced by the reality of the technology. Battery backed solar and wind on the other hand are both cheaper, and can be built faster than the ‘AI’ datacenters they are ment to power.
  
  Don’t get me wrong, I think nuclear power is important to the energy transition, and will find its use in certain use cases like large scale marine transport or places near the artic circle, but the window to build it was 1970 to 2010. At a point when the biggest thing slowing down green energy if finding financing for it, it makes sense to go with the lowest cost option available, which is battery backed solar.
  
  6
  
  10 years is unrealistic, today it's closer to 15 years. Both time frames would be too late. Doesn't matter either way though since the US elections. The world is not going to be able to compensate for the US emissions under Trump's fascism when we were already on our way to 3 degrees globally BEFORE that.
  
  2
  
  Plants take 10 year to build because of a purposely complicated burocratic process. We churn out at least 1 nuclear submarines a year.
  
  Edit: I still think you're right, renewables and batteries are cheaper than nuclear in most first world countries, but the building process doesn't have to be that long.
  
  1
- No, we already needed nuclear power.
  
  2
- Why is this even downvoted?
  
  1

You've viewed 16 comments.