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

Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

today.oregonstate.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 504 posts

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#211

Post by Delmololo »

jmyeet wrote: post #188
belter wrote: post #3

We are in the multilayered race between - The risk of the rise of AGI - The risk and madness of Nuclear conflict - The risk of runaway Climate change My money is on Mother Gaia. She will brutally and swiftly discipline her puppies.

I'm not that worried about nuclear conflict because it's a scenario where literally nobody wins. There's always the "Madman" hypothesis but really that's no way to do geopolitical analysis. Nobody is truly "crazy" (IMHO). Remember those orders have to be carried out by someone. They've studies on this with missile silo operators and they had a disturbing or comforting (depending on your POV) tendency to not launch. I…

[flagged]

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#212

Post by triceratops »

sushibowl wrote: post #167
morkalork wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Letting off a few nukes could slow climate change a bit right? I vaguely recall that all the dust kicked up by the hundreds of tests in the 50s and 60s had an effect.

Possibly, but you have to keep doing it. kicking up dust into the atmosphere tends to have significant short-term impact on the global climate (see e.g. volcanic winters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter ). Then the dust settles shortly and everything returns to normal. But volcanic eruptions that cause a winter like that tend to be quite a bit more powerful than your average nuclear weapon. More importa…

Drop a nuke into a volcano /s

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#213

Post by trashtester »

jmyeet wrote: post #188
belter wrote: post #3

We are in the multilayered race between - The risk of the rise of AGI - The risk and madness of Nuclear conflict - The risk of runaway Climate change My money is on Mother Gaia. She will brutally and swiftly discipline her puppies.

I'm not that worried about nuclear conflict because it's a scenario where literally nobody wins. There's always the "Madman" hypothesis but really that's no way to do geopolitical analysis. Nobody is truly "crazy" (IMHO). Remember those orders have to be carried out by someone. They've studies on this with missile silo operators and they had a disturbing or comforting (depending on your POV) tendency to not launch. I…

> There's really been such a long period of time that if runaway climate change were going to happen, why hasn't it happened already?

I don't think runaway climate change or even something like a reversal of the Gulf Stream were ever any of the mainstream scenarios from IPCC. The worst scenarios, IIRC, were a global warming of +6 to 10C.

And that is over several centuries, provided we do nothing to stop it.

This century, the worst scenarios are about 4C hotter than today.

Also, it's not like the temperature is going up that much everywhere. For instance, heating an area near water from 34 to 38C means a lot more water evaporation, and thus more cooling. Also, stronger winds mean the humidity may be blown away more quickly.

Now even 4C of heating, provided we don't develop any technologies to either counter it or cope with it could cause a disaster that could cause similar disruptions, forced displacements etc as WW2, but the world didn't end because of WW2. It was only a minor speed bump in the grand scope of things.

Anyway, the probability that it should take 100s of years to reach AGI seems quite slim. And once we have AGI/ASI, the world is going to be so fundamentally different that I'm not sure how much some warming really means, at least for humans.

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#214

Post by Delmololo »

blueflow wrote: post #82
huygens6363 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fear of AGI is not based on Altman’s latest brews. Look at the progress curve of AI in general is one way to get a feeling for it. The other one, which I prefer, is looking at existing AIs for which we thought human ingenuity was top notch and how they are beating us left and right. Strategy, creativity, cunning, all human notions that are being slaughtered. Slowly, but surely. It is “just” a matter of combining. I t…

I'm patiently waiting for my sysadmin job to be automated away. AGI, its time to deliver! I'm waiting. Should have happened yesterday?

[flagged]

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#215

Post by triceratops »

c048 wrote: post #58
darkwater wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put the blame in the right place, perhaps? Obviously China (and its government) has its own responsibilities as well, but it all started with Western companies (and the Western lifestyle)

China said yes to all those things for Western money. They could've said no, they could've put in restrictions to lower their profits and improve conditions. Don't act like China is some poor puppy bullied around by the West.

You could say the same about Western countries. They could've said no, put in restrictions to lower their profits and improve their conditions. They are richer, so they're more capable of doing all those same things than a poor developing country like China used to be.

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#216

Post by trashtester »

BirAdam wrote: post #105
kylebenzle wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. AGI doesn't even exist and Sam Altman and I agree on one thing, GPTs will not get us there. Saying AGI is a risk is like saying the sun exploding is a risk. 2. Nuclear conflict is real, it's astounding Pakistan or Russia hasnt used the bomb yet but they will when the US backs them into a corner. 3. Climate change? At this point, who cares? We know it's happening and happening VERY slowly so we have PLENTY of time…

Well, also, plastic waste getting dumped in water ways, and in the USA, steel and coal waste being dumped into the Ohio (causing a huge dead zone in the Gulf). There are serious pollution problems everywhere, and I kind of hate the climate change narrative for taking people’s eyes off of those problems.

AI is already developing enzymes that can break down plastics. Put them on bacteria, and that plastic may stop being a problem quickly.

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#217

Post by krainboltgreene »

_yb2s wrote: post #160
AlexandrB wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#1 is marketing hype. #2 is very real. #3 is happening and could cause #2 if wars for livable land and water resources break out.

Regardless of how realistic you think AGI risk is, it’s not marketing hype- it has been a human fear and central in scifi for a long time. Movies like 2001, Terminator, and the Matrix were hugely popular long before AI was profitable. Arguably ancient myths about golems and genies are essentially the same fear and concept. AI companies are afraid of public fear over AI as it might lead to regulating them out of exist…

None of the movies and stories you mentioned were about the "rise of AGI". The closest you can get might be The Matrix via Animatrix? You can go look up what the authors meant by their pieces, there's plenty of analysis of each of those stories. In addition I would love a citation on "the rise of AGI" being a fear in sci-fi for a long time, I've enjoyed quite a bit of science fiction literature and I can only think of a handful that even touched on the idea.

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#218

Post by DFHippie »

itsoktocry wrote: post #178
angusturner wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the tools to solve the challenges of waste, environmental damage etc. already exist within the framework of capitalism. Mostly they are just unpopular and seen by many as a government overreach. 1. taxes that force corporations and individuals to pay for the negative externalities / social costs of their actions 2. regulation (e.g. stop allowing planned obsolence, mandate the right to repair etc.) 3. governme…

> Anyway, my point is that the issue is basically one of co-ordination and political will Again, what does "political will" mean? What are you going to do to those that disagree? Lock them up? Exterminate them? What is the solution to force people to do your bidding, and has it ever worked?

I assume they mean convince enough people to implement the proposed policies that they can fix things through normal, legal means. "Forcing people to do your bidding" normally consists of winning elections and then implementing and enforcing legislation. This is how we force people who want to shoplift, cheat on their taxes, or murder to do our bidding. It doesn't work perfectly, but it only has to work well enough.

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#219

Post by card_zero »

Rinzler89 wrote: post #144
c048 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China said yes to all those things for Western money. They could've said no, they could've put in restrictions to lower their profits and improve conditions. Don't act like China is some poor puppy bullied around by the West.

>China said yes to all those things for Western money. They could've said no Terrible argument. If it's not gonna be China, it's gonna be Vietnam, or Bangladesh, or Pakistan, or Sri Lanka, or whoever the rich west will deem fit to host their dirty industries at the most rock bottom prices so they can make a profit. So again, is really all China's or $POOR_NATION fault, or the West's fault for constantly bidding the p…

So, in your mind, China's industry is really the West's? Also, China is poor? Just a poor passive obedient victim of the West's desires?

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#220

Post by jmyeet »

darksaints wrote: post #198
jmyeet wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not that worried about nuclear conflict because it's a scenario where literally nobody wins. There's always the "Madman" hypothesis but really that's no way to do geopolitical analysis. Nobody is truly "crazy" (IMHO). Remember those orders have to be carried out by someone. They've studies on this with missile silo operators and they had a disturbing or comforting (depending on your POV) tendency to not launch. I…

Really? You’ve never met someone with the “if I can’t have it, nobody can” mindset? Never heard of a custody dispute where the losing parent kills the kids in order to deprive the other parent of them? Vladimir Putin is exactly that kind of person. When backed into a corner and knowing he will die, he would rather nuke the whole world than accept his fate. And those orders will be carried out by people in heavily res…

So this is a learning opportunity for the differences between "idealism" and "materialism".

"Idealism", which unfortunately underpins all mainstream political discourse, is simply that certain actors (people, states, etc) are good because they're good or they're bad because they're bad. It's really the Marvel view of the world. There are good guys and bad guys. Idealism is a completely inadequate way to view the world because it simply reflects the propaganda that's effectively sold the idea of who the good guys and bad guys are.

"Materialism" is a broadd term that originates in the philosophy that people affect the material world and the material world affects people. More specifically to this point, it's the idea that people do things for a reason. That doesn't mean the reason is justified or sound or good. But there is a world view that underpins any actions by any actor.

So when it comes to wars, the idealist will say one side are the good guys and the other side are the bad guys and never go any deeper than that. The materialist will derive that all wars come down to the desire for resources and land. Not religion. Not ethnicity. Those are simply pretexts to motivate the citizenry and foot soldiers.

So Putin dons the Duganist [1] hat, just like European kings in the Crusades wrapped themselves in Christianity. Putin may even be a true believer but that's not why he's doing what he's doing. He's securing a land bridge to Crimea, a warm water port on the Black Sea and control of territorial waters in the Black Sea and the resources contained therein.

He probably figures the West will eventually lose interest (which is already happening) and in the mean time he can keep selling oil and gas to China and India so the sanctions are inconvenient but can be weathered.

There's nothing crazy about it.

But even if he was crazy, to launch a nuclear attack, someone would have to carry out those orders. Bomb loaders, generals, submarine commanders, pilots, missile silo operators, etc. Look up the history of Vasily Aleksandrovich Arkhipov.

[1]: https://ens0.medium.com/what-is-duginism-71f44a652658

Post reply on HN