Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A conversation about AI for science with Jason Pruet

lanl.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 163 posts

Re: A conversation about AI for science with Jason Pruet

#101

Post by Retric »

daedrdev wrote: post #91
Retric wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can very quickly and reasonably cheaply ‘solve’ global warming without AI. Wind, solar, batteries + existing hydro and nuclear can hit a 95% clean electricity grid with capacity to scale in EV’s and heat pumps. Electricity + home heating + cars is not 100%, but cutting emissions in half means you double the time before reaching any given threshold. For many problems the last 10% is the most challenging but we get…

Electricity is only part of energy use and emissions production. In no way is there a simple and cheap solution, all proposals have tradeoffs and costs

Electricity can replace the need for gasoline, diesel, natural gas, fuel oil, coal etc across a wide range of applications while saving money. Thus the talk of heat pumps and EV’s in that post. Which then further reduces the need to extract, transport, and refine oil, natural gas, and coal further reducing methane from leaking pipes etc.

However, doing so requires ramping up electricity production and storage.

Re: A conversation about AI for science with Jason Pruet

#102

Post by Retric »

drdrey wrote: post #96
daedrdev wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electricity is only part of energy use and emissions production. In no way is there a simple and cheap solution, all proposals have tradeoffs and costs

electricity generation is only ~20% of emissions

Replacing gasoline and diesel use in cars and trucks removes 10% directly at the tailpipe and another 3-5% indirectly. But EV’s need electricity thus clean electricity can offset more than its current 20% share. The actual calculation depends on unknown factors like how we ramp down oil production, ethanol use, and how refineries adjust to changing demands.

Add heating for buildings + hot water + industrial processes that can use electricity instead of fossil fuels alongside indirect effects like methane leaks from pipelines and drumroll.

We can get to ~50% reduction while saving money over using fossil fuels.

Re: A conversation about AI for science with Jason Pruet

#103

Post by temp0826 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #51
haswell wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To the extent that further improvements to AI remain economically useful, "let's do these other things first" means your economy trails behind those of whoever did work on the AI. The major question is: at what point will unaddressed climate change nullify these economic gains and make the fact that anyone worried about them feel silly in retrospect? Or put another way, will we even have the chance collectively enj…

Still, another two big questions are: - To what extent AI will actually be helpful in solving the climate crisis? - To what extent the power generation growth fueled by AI will be critical to solving the climate crisis, and conversely, how badly we'll be screwed without it? "Degrowth" is not an option. It hasn't been for a long time now. We can't just "social solution" our way out this problem anymore.

The fastest way to solve the climate crisis is to DESTROY ALL HUMANS

Re: A conversation about AI for science with Jason Pruet

#104

Post by abtinf »

hbartab wrote: post #6

> We certainly need to partner with industry. Because they are so far ahead and are making such giant investments, that is the only possible path. And therein lies the risk: research labs may become wholly dependent on companies whose agendas are fundamentally commercial. In exchange for access to compute and frontier models, labs may cede control over data, methods, and IP—letting private firms quietly extract value…

I would prefer those with commercial interests pursue technological development than those nationalistic and weapons development interests.

Re: A conversation about AI for science with Jason Pruet

#105

Post by _heimdall »

dlivingston wrote: post #84
_heimdall wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can't just switch to clean energy, we would need to drastically reduce our energy use per capita.

Absolutely not. We would be moving backwards as a society. Increased energy usage is a bellwether of societal advancement. See the Kardashev scale and Dyson sphere for example. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

How do you propose we supplant all of our current energy use with green energy? What are the sources that work at scale, how do we store energy at scale assuming the green sources aren't 24/7 reliable, and how do we scale said systems without a net impact on the environment?

Our current use of electricity per capita, at least in the west, is ridiculously unsustainable if we aren't willing to keep abusing fossil fuels as an efficient store and source of energy.

I'm a for reducing our impact, but we have to stop kidding ourselves with the pipe dream that we just need the right source of energy to be able to grow our energy use per capita indefinitely.

Re: A conversation about AI for science with Jason Pruet

#106

Post by klabb3 »

monkeyelite wrote: post #21
hbartab wrote: post #6

> We certainly need to partner with industry. Because they are so far ahead and are making such giant investments, that is the only possible path. And therein lies the risk: research labs may become wholly dependent on companies whose agendas are fundamentally commercial. In exchange for access to compute and frontier models, labs may cede control over data, methods, and IP—letting private firms quietly extract value…

> research labs may become wholly dependent on companies They already are. Who provides their computers and operating systems? Who provides their HR software? Who provides their expensive lab equipment? Companies are not in some separate realm. They are how our society produces goods and services, including the most essential ones.

Sorry for meta but.. this is one of those rare cases where both the argument and the rebuttal are worth agreeing with.

Re: A conversation about AI for science with Jason Pruet

#107

Post by _heimdall »

threeseed wrote: post #73
_heimdall wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can't just switch to clean energy, we would need to drastically reduce our energy use per capita.

Which is actually a problem AI is perfect for.

How so? LLMs will just guess at what sounds like a likely human response to the problem.

Re: A conversation about AI for science with Jason Pruet

#108

Post by somenameforme »

madaxe_again wrote: post #66
engineer_22 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's also cure cancer and stop all wars while we're at it.

Don’t forget world hunger. I don’t understand this line of reasoning - it’s like saying “you’re not allowed steam engines until you drain all of your mines”. It’s moralistic, rather than pragmatic.

It's just a passive aggressive means of disagreeing with the value of something without providing any argument for such. The exact same rhetorical fallacies are widespread when it comes to debates around the values of e.g. pursuing efforts to become a multiplanetary species.

I think it's safe to call it a rhetorical fallacy because its underlying premise implies humanity can somehow only focus on a very finite number of things at once and that funds directed to 'your thing' would somehow otherwise be directed to 'their thing' which is even more absurd.

Re: A conversation about AI for science with Jason Pruet

#110

Post by mindslight »

mdhb wrote: post #11
hbartab wrote: post #6

> We certainly need to partner with industry. Because they are so far ahead and are making such giant investments, that is the only possible path. And therein lies the risk: research labs may become wholly dependent on companies whose agendas are fundamentally commercial. In exchange for access to compute and frontier models, labs may cede control over data, methods, and IP—letting private firms quietly extract value…

This is literally THE scam Elon, Thiel, Sacks and others are running as they gut the government. Sell assets like government real estate to themselves at super cheap rates and then set up as many dependencies as they can where the government has to buy services from them because they have nowhere else to turn. To give an example this missile dome bullshit they are talking about building which is a terrible idea for a…

The political platform for rebuilding our country after the destructionists are deposed (which will happen sooner or later) needs to include scrutinizing every single one of these sales and/or long term contracts, and outright invalidating many of them as the fraudulent conveyances that they are. No just accepting the nonsense of "oh that's private property now, nothing can be done". If the precedent discourages "investment" (aka looting) of government institutions in the future, that's a good thing.
Post reply on HN