Skip Navigation

Posts
88
Comments
35
Joined
12 mo. ago

  • Agreed, that's the only reason I'd want a huge amount of money. Conservation easements and land trusts all day.

  • She's on the roof!

  • A lot of the time they simply can’t adapt, not quickly enough at least.

    Yes, that's the key point. Individual species take a long time to adapt through evolution, and ecosystems can adapt at the cost of losing some species, but nothing can adapt at the speed and scale with which humanity is reshaping the Earth. A huge portion of the planet is no longer suitable for anything other than generalists, scavengers, and invasives.

  • Science @mander.xyz

    AI enters the grant game, picking winners

  • Biodiversity @mander.xyz

    Why are wind turbines killing millions of bats?

  • I see this less as a kit for arguing with folks in real life (or worse, on the internet), and more of an exploration/dissection of common arguments put forth by the pro-AI crowd. So the next time you see those points pop up in an article or editorial, you can more easily evaluate whether or not they hold water.

  • Seems like you'd just lift up the mattress like they did for this picture.

  • Just deleted my account. This was the final straw.

  • That "someone" is pretty much everyone's stock portfolios/pensions/retirement plans, as about 60% of stock market gains in 2025 have come from AI megacaps. The "magnificent 7" make up about 35% of the entire stock market at this point, and they're all heavily invested (overleveraged) in speculative AI. When this bubble pops it's going to be nasty.

  • Same with Google Workspace. Just got an email last month saying prices are increasing to reflect "new AI features," all of which I have disabled because (A) I don't use them, and (B) they're another privacy nightmare.

    At this point we're all just subsidizing the shareholders. The vast majority of generative AI being tacked on to subscriptions is useless, it's just corporations jumping on the hype train to boost their stock price.

  • You could see it as a modern form of animism, or pantheism/panentheism. I actually subscribe to the latter as it seems clear that matter is an emergent property of consciousness (not the other way around), but I would ascribe AI as much consciousness as the silicate minerals it's derived from. Sentience can only truly be self-identified so we do have to go off the honor system to some degree, but if we look around at everything else that self-identifies as conscious, AI doesn't even remotely resemble it.

  • Dave Karpf is a great reality check in this field.

  • Fears that the rapid adoption of AI will destroy hopes of tackling the climate crisis have been “overstated”, according to the report, which was published on Thursday. That is because harnessing AI to make energy use and other activities more efficient could result in savings that reduce greenhouse gas emissions overall. (Bolded the key word there.)

    They go on to list some potential uses for AI, such as improving efficiency in the energy grid & manufacturing (ignoring the fact that increasing efficiency increases consumption), optimizing traffic, finding more critical mineral reserves, etc.

    These uses could offset some of the massive demands that AI will place on the world’s energy systems. But that is likely to require greater direction from governments, the IEA report found. Left alone, the rapid growth of AI could prove a severe problem for energy systems and the environment.

    Hm, wonder which path we're going to choose.

    Claude Turmes, a former Green MEP and energy minister for Luxembourg, said the disadvantages of AI were more likely to materialise than the optimistic projections of the IEA, and governments needed much more help to avoid the pitfalls. He accused the IEA of painting too rosy a picture and failing to spell out harsh truths to policymakers.

  • We all have different roles to play. I'm here for the fight, but I have a few friends who are fleeing to Europe right now. I can understand both choices.