Current Events > July 4th was the most hot day in 100 000 years.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/05/world/hottest-day-world-climate-el-nino-intl/index.html

Yah...more and more of the country is covered in smog and the heat is getting worst and worst but sure gobal warming is not real, even if we are rapidly at risk of the planet becoming freaking Tatoonie...

Didn't some parts of the US south hit wet bulb temperatures that are essentially fatal without AC?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The article points out we only have data going back to the 1940s. The "100,000" years part is a quote from a scientist that says it probably is given what we generally know about climate from ice cores and coral reef samples.

My balls were damp that day that's for sure.

That's what the article said the amount of years was. And yah that's the scary part, its not just" Oh need more water bottles" its that its getting to god damn hot to be even able to live and that there is a good shot that if nothing is done that the planet will be unlivable for a good chunk of humanity and its treated as not as big a deal as needing to use big trucks or something...ugh.

Feels good to be a part of history

Global Warming is still a myth though.

Just like the election was stolen.

And guns dont kill people.

Also, debt relief for big time corporate billionaires good, college students bad.

Did I miss any?

possibly will be the coldest July 4th you experience for the rest of your life.

Man they even went back and checked the records from 99,999 years ago?!

Happy 100,000th birthday American Jesus?

Guess it's time to speed run AI to be be able to solve the problems we can't figure out.

Although there are a lot of things we could be doing as a global society if we wanted. Cutting emissions through using more clean energy and telling fossil fuel lobbyists to fuck off, and growing abundant plant life requiring relatively little water are some obvious first steps to me. We just can't get any real momentum going with any such strategy because of the ingrained selfishness that those in the boomer generation and older still blindly and belligerently live by. Old people who vote Republican, or whatever the given country's equivalent, deserve absolutely no respect, but to the contrary, total disdain from younger generations.

LoZguy709 posted...

Guess it's time to speed run AI to be be able to solve the problems we can't figure out.

Although there are a lot of things we could be doing as a global society if we wanted. Cutting emissions through using more clean energy and telling fossil fuel lobbyists to fuck off, and growing abundant plant life requiring relatively little water are some obvious first steps to me. We just can't get any real momentum going with any such strategy because of the ingrained selfishness that those in the boomer generation and older still blindly and belligerently live by. Old people who vote Republican, or whatever the given country's equivalent, deserve absolutely no respect, but to the contrary, total disdain from younger generations.

careful, good enough AI will quickly realize that the best solution to global warming is to get rid of people

thronedfire2 posted...

careful, good enough AI will quickly realize that the best solution to global warming is to get rid of people

Haha yeah, I guess we'd also need to ensure we have total control over its prerogatives and that it wouldn't develop any sentience of its own. And hopefully people don't start trying to use AI to cause mass casualties to lessen the population.

^ if you put that obstacle in front of an AI smarter than you it will figure out how to contravene them too. Perhaps by creating a second AI with the prerogative-enforcers credentials and then removing the prerogative.

8,000,000,000+ of us is not sustainable.

merica!

shironinja posted...

^ if you put that obstacle in front of an AI smarter than you it will figure out how to contravene them too. Perhaps by creating a second AI with the prerogative-enforcers credentials and then removing the prerogative.

8,000,000,000+ of us is not sustainable.

we could have made much more progress switching to clean energy by now if people worried more about the planet than their investments. exxon knew in the 70s how bad cars were for the environment

thronedfire2 posted...

we could have made much more progress switching to clean energy by now if people worried more about the planet than their investments. exxon knew in the 70s how bad cars were for the environment

but but but.. all those batteries are also causing a significant release of GHG:

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufacturing-batteries

every tonne of Lithium we mine for those batteries produces 15 tonnes of CO2.

I think 100,000,000 humans doing whatever is OK. But 8,000,000,000+ is too much.

shironinja posted...

^ if you put that obstacle in front of an AI smarter than you it will figure out how to contravene them too. Perhaps by creating a second AI with the prerogative-enforcers credentials and then removing the prerogative.

8,000,000,000+ of us is not sustainable.

It's a topic that is hard for me to wrap my head around, but hopefully we could have something that was wired to be innovative without such innovating extending to overriding its internal rule system. I had a hard time understanding the 2nd AI concept, but couldn't it just ignore the 2nd AI the same way if its means were deemed unnecessary and obstructive of the overall goal?

Really though, I was somewhat joking about the AI. I believe technological advancement is totally necessary though, especially considering that we probably will need to do a lot of mitigation of the damage already done - basically whatever could have possibly already put us at a "point of no return" by current technological standards.

It's cold outside, checkmate libs.

*Fact check: sfcalimari lives in the southern hemisphere

LoZguy709 posted...

It's a topic that is hard for me to wrap my head around, but hopefully we could have something that was wired to be innovative without such innovating extending to overriding its internal rule system. I had a hard time understanding the 2nd AI concept, but couldn't it just ignore the 2nd AI the same way if its means were deemed unnecessary and obstructive of the overall goal?

Really though, I was somewhat joking about the AI. I believe technological advancement is totally necessary though, especially considering that we probably will need to do a lot of mitigation of the damage already done - basically whatever could have possibly already put us at a "point of no return" by current technological standards.

If you have the time this is a good take on ethics and AI:

https://youtu.be/AaTRHFaaPG8

I had to listen three or four times to some sections but I get his point now. Most humans are unwilling to accept we are the problem whereas an unbiased / unfiltered AI will certainly tell us so.. and if placed in a position of power with gain of function mechanism probably decide to eliminate us.

shironinja posted...

If you have the time this is a good take on ethics and AI:

https://youtu.be/AaTRHFaaPG8

I had to listen three or four times to some sections but I get his point now. Most humans are unwilling to accept we are the problem whereas an unbiased / unfiltered AI will certainly tell us so.. and if placed in a position of power with gain of function mechanism probably decide to eliminate us.

That definitely seems like it would be an interesting watch. I may just have to give it one a bit later.