Really convenient that what is in his economic self interest, and what just so happens to have been partially invented by his former company, just happens to be the risky bet that will save us all. What are the odds?
Though I will say, a tiny bit in his defense, there’s a reasonable if pessimistic case to be made that the only feasible so…
Really convenient that what is in his economic self interest, and what just so happens to have been partially invented by his former company, just happens to be the risky bet that will save us all. What are the odds?
Though I will say, a tiny bit in his defense, there’s a reasonable if pessimistic case to be made that the only feasible solution to climate change (given collective action issues, international cooperation challenges, dysfunction in political systems and old fashioned greed) is to make carbon capture and storage radically more efficient and cheaper. Not saying that’s a good thing but as someone who really cares about climate being solved I do worry that’s the only feasible answer, since it may be too hard to get people to stop drilling. If you assume AGI is possible in the near to medium term, assume it will radically accelerate scientific discovery, assume sufficiently cheap carbon capture is physically possible, and finally assume it’s a discovery that would be unlikely without AGI, then such an investment makes sense. But seeing that chain of assumptions written out, and comparing to just further direct investment in climate research and technologies, kind of answers things on its own.
Really convenient that what is in his economic self interest, and what just so happens to have been partially invented by his former company, just happens to be the risky bet that will save us all. What are the odds?
Though I will say, a tiny bit in his defense, there’s a reasonable if pessimistic case to be made that the only feasible solution to climate change (given collective action issues, international cooperation challenges, dysfunction in political systems and old fashioned greed) is to make carbon capture and storage radically more efficient and cheaper. Not saying that’s a good thing but as someone who really cares about climate being solved I do worry that’s the only feasible answer, since it may be too hard to get people to stop drilling. If you assume AGI is possible in the near to medium term, assume it will radically accelerate scientific discovery, assume sufficiently cheap carbon capture is physically possible, and finally assume it’s a discovery that would be unlikely without AGI, then such an investment makes sense. But seeing that chain of assumptions written out, and comparing to just further direct investment in climate research and technologies, kind of answers things on its own.