Eric Schmidt says we’re not going to meet our climate targets, so we must put all our energy into improving AI and hope it solves the problem for us.
He’s part of a growing chorus of tech billionaires openly admitting they’ll sacrifice the climate on the altar of their AI ambitions.
https://disconnect.blog/silicon-valley-is-sacrificing-the-climate-for-ai/
It makes no sense at all.
We already know the solution to the climate crisis: use less energy and convert current energy sources to renewables. It's not a question of solving it, it's a question of carrying out known solutions.
Whatever AI/LLM he comes up with will say the same thing because that's how they work, they just repeat what the experts have already published. They don't come up with any new solutions.
Of course, using less energy also means avoiding the expansion of AI/LLM as it is so energy-hungry. That is perhaps his real agenda here, he is maybe scared that energy shortages will restrict his profits?
@FediThing @parismarx I agree with you and I'm wondering why using more energy is a problem if they pay fair market prices for it.
Meaning using energy per se is not the problem but using non-renewable energy generated by fossil fuels is.
@FediThing@chinwag.org
We need to be reducing energy usage overall. The amount of renewable energy capacity at any one point is limited, it takes time and stability to build up renewable energy capacity and people use fossil fuel energy to fill the gaps.
If Apple, Google etc hog renewables in the short term so they can run AI/LLM stuff now, others will find it more difficult and expensive to switch to renewables and fossil fuel emissions will rise. Apple etc will claim it's nothing to do with them even though it's their fault.
We need to be reducing energy now, not in the future but now. This is incompatible with AI/LLM tech.
@FediThing @parismarx Interesting! Is there a timeline where big tech demands more energy and renewables are the only cost-effective solution? As in: Can it drive innovation in renewables?
Thinking: In the end what the climate is regulated by is greenhouse gas emissions and not energy usage. If big tech can keep emissions low they can have all the energy they want.
But from your explanation it sounds like that's not the case due to renewables ramp up time?
"If big tech can keep emissions low they can have all the energy they want."
They aren't conjuring up energy out of thin air. They are using energy capacity from suppliers which would otherwise be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
This is an emergency crisis situation, like being in a war where the enemy is attacking. We need to be stopping carbon now, as fast as possible and as hard as possible.
In a crisis situation, everything needs to be organised to tacking the crisis. Any capacity for renewables to be built needs to be used to reduce greenhouse gases right now. The fate of life on Earth is at stake.
If these companies have some means to conjure up extra energy, that needs to be used to reduce greenhouse gases now instead of pissed away on unnecessary party tricks like LLM.
That's how companies operate in wartime, and the innovation carried out in wartime is driven precisely by limited resources and a very specific enemy that needs to be defeated.
None of these big tech companies have ever had to deal with limited resources or fighting to protect society. All they have ever known is trying to make their CEOs and shareholders as rich as possible as quickly as possible. That is all that drives them.
@FediThing @parismarx That sounds like capitalism doing capitalist things and only regulation or a carbon tax or similar can shape a reasonable pathway forward.
Let's see what will happen here and maybe the AI/LLM bubble bursts anytime soon.
