• Lvxferre@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    Or alternatively fine (yes, not “tax”; fine) heavy energy sinks, to the point that they’re unable to run, and use the money to address climatic issues now.

    But it’s easier to wallow in a mix of nirvana fallacy (either solving the climate issue altogether, or doing jack shit) + wishful belief (“AGI is cooooming! Praise AGI!”), right?

    This wouldn’t even stop the development of model-based generation, mind you. Only force it towards smarter approaches, that don’t boil down to “needz moar [parameters | training data | cranks]!” brute-force.

    But nah. I’m supposed to treat it as a devil or as an angel, right?

    • Helix 🧬@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      fine (yes, fine; not just “tax”) heavy energy sinks, to the point that they’re unable to run,

      Like AI? 😄

      • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Exactly! (Plus bitcoin mining. Same deal, really - a flawed tech with some potential and some use, but that does not justify the associated environmental harm.)

        Of course, tech bros like Schmidt won’t like the solution.

        And if the underlying tech improves in such a way that it stops being fined, it stopped being part of the problem.