US AI Action Plan

Ice caps? Try human beings.

Increased Mortality: Projections indicate an additional 14.5 million deaths by 2050 due to climate-related impacts like floods, droughts, heatwaves, and climate-sensitive diseases (e.g., malaria and dengue).

Economic Losses: Global economic losses are predicted to reach $12.5 trillion by 2050, with an additional $1.1 trillion burden on healthcare systems due to climate-induced impacts. One study estimates that climate change will cost the global economy $38 trillion a year within the next 25 years.

Displacement and Migration: Over 200 million people may be displaced by climate change by 2050, with an estimated 21.5 million displaced annually since 2008 by weather-related events. In a worst-case scenario, the World Bank suggests this figure could reach 216 million people moving internally due to water scarcity and threats to agricultural livelihoods. Some researchers predict that 1.2 billion people could be displaced by 2050 in the worst-case scenario due to natural disasters and other ecological threats.

Food and Water Insecurity: Climate change exacerbates food and water insecurity, leading to malnutrition and increased disease burden, especially in vulnerable populations. For example, a significant increase in drought in certain regions could cause 3.2 million deaths from malnutrition by 2050. An estimated 183 million additional people could go hungry by 2050, even if warming is held below 1.6°C.

Mental Health Impacts: Climate change contributes to mental health issues like anxiety, depression, and PTSD, particularly in vulnerable populations and those experiencing climate disasters or chronic changes like drought. Extreme heat has been linked to increased aggression and suicide risk. Studies also indicate that children born today will experience a significantly higher number of climate extremes than previous generations, potentially impacting their mental well-being and sense of future security.

Inequality and Vulnerability: Climate change disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, including low-income individuals, people of color, outdoor workers, and those with existing health conditions, worsening existing health inequities and hindering poverty reduction efforts.

I enjoyed Robert Heinlin's work. I'd probably keep it in my training set if copyright allowed.

What I might drop are the many articles with little content that strictly reiterate racist and sexist claims from intersectionality. The various narratives, like how black people had less of X, they embed in so many news reports. It usually jars our brain, too, since the story isn't even about that. They keep forcing certain topics and talking points into everything hoping people will believe and repeat it if they hear it enough. The right-wing people do this on some topics, too.

I'd let most things people wrote, even some political works on many topics, into the training set. The political samples would usually be the best examples of those ideologies, like Adam Smith or Karl Marx. Those redundant, political narratives they force into non-political articles would get those pages deleted. If possible, I'd just delete those sections containing the random tangent. For political news, I'd try to include a curated sample with roughly equal amounts of left and right reports with some independents thrown in.

So, only manipulative content that constantly repeats the same things would get suppressed. Maybe highly-debated topics, too, so I could include a small number of exemplars. Then, reduce the domination of certain groups in what politics were there. Then, align it to be honest and polite but no specific politics.

I'm very curious what a GPT3-level AI would say about many topics if trained that way instead of Progressive-heavy training like OpenAI, etc.

Lol by what metric? I don't know when this ridiculous thing started where the world was somehow objectively divided based upon things you agree or disagree with. But it's constantly offered as argumentation: "oh you don't agree with that, so it's XYZ"

It’s true that new nuclear is more expensive than solar + battery on a per-kWh basis, and the regulatory/compliance overhead is significant. But solar is intermittent, and batteries only solve short-duration gaps—firm, zero-carbon baseload still matters. Existing nuclear is actually quite cost-effective and displacing it often leads to more fossil fuel use. Long-term, we likely need a mix: cheap renewables for bulk energy, and nuclear (or equivalent) for reliability.

For every single item I mentioned, I can point to actual actions that the government and the coalition that supports it has taken, that demonstrate that agenda.

But I suspect that won't penetrate the kind of denial you're clinging to.