I read AI execs confidently predicting “an end to disease and poverty and bring about ‘a renaissance of liberal democracy and human rights,’ and that ‘many will be literally moved to tears’”. I am reminded of the dot-com bust when people were throwing money at IPOs without a business plan.
We should be wary of execs promising amazing scientific achievements when they have no background in science or medicine to understand their own claims. How can we end disease without sacrificing our own autonomy when so much morbidity is caused by lifestyle choices? How will a AI / for-profit business bring about liberal democracy when it is not a government — is this claim sedition?
A great deal of money will be lost on this tulip before any is made. Be sure to bake in a AI crash into your investing projections. I’d rather we kept our eyes on the ball of reducing carbon.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/10/agi-predictions/680280/
Alternatively, you could have a nice subsidized fossil fuel plant, then make a case with the captive regulator that the sequestration part costs too much, and get approved for atmospheric release instead. Why? Jobs, of course. Better than shutting a “perfectly good” new plant down — we should pay people to accelerate the climate change! What agency in Louisiana would balk at such a request? They certainly haven’t until now.
The time to stop this nonsense was when the lobbyists were in Washington pushing an “all of the above” approach to US energy security. Now that the money is approved, chicanery will follow. Our only hope would be an extensive chemical engineering review of the project to see if it is even likely to be possible under physical law and economic reality, and deny those applications that aren’t.
For every life that the heaviest 1% of SUVs and trucks save, there are more than a dozen lives lost in other vehicles.
This former chemist thinks that carbon sequestration will have such a high entropic energy cost that we will end up with energy costs that are double or triple what they are now for petroleum plants. Given solar and wind are both already cheaper than fossil fuels of any kind, the projects will likely die on the vine, except where there is no green alternative native like plastics manufacture. This is not rocket science. Any competent chemical engineer can work the costs out in advance, so we must presume projects moving forward are looking to make their money on Biden-subsidized construction then quietly fail a few years later as “expected profits” fail to materialize (as expected).
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/09/louisiana-climate-carbon-capture-lng/679664/
@daringfireball I feel the same way about the massive Democrat spam machine and responded the same way. I no longer donate to any Democrat causes except for progressive ones. AOC got $20 from me. As for the rest, they can have my vote but I’m not paying for center or right wing candidates anymore.
When elected President, in my first 60 days, I will begin the permanent phase out on sales of new internal combustion vehicles, replace "employer paid" healthcare with a single payer model, triple the minimum wage, and ban the use of airline overhead luggage bins. They were never a good idea. It's time for the madness to stop!
Who is with me?
Plugin-hybrids don't really help fuel economy that much. They mostly just make the car heavier.
I continue to be disappointed in Apple secrecy. I probably would have been a natural fit for this, almost unique, but never knew about it. My dad suffers from diabetes.