Judge decides case based on AI-hallucinated case law

[The Firebird]

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Mitigation still means that less needs to be done, in order to alter course.

I'm not anti mitigation by any means. But if you can't even get folks to stop eating cheeseburgers...at a certain point it becomes clear the chicken has left the coop, with respect to the environmental criticisms.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm not anti mitigation by any means. But if you can't even get folks to stop eating cheeseburgers...at a certain point it becomes clear the chicken has left the coop, with respect to the environmental criticisms.

That doesn’t mean we don’t push back against the ubiquitous use of something that takes a massive amount more resources per output than what it (very poorly) pretends to replace.

Being poor sucks. I’ve done a lot of it, and am happy to not be doing it anymore. The intractable power of oligarchs doesn’t mean I won’t fight individual anti-poor policies that will hurt people. Okay, there’s bigger fish to fry….so fry both.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Thing is, in certain contexts, “it stops here, no more” is perfectly reasonable and justified. In a closed system, as damage accumulates, it can be utterly destroyed. “Fairness” and taking turns doesn’t matter unless and until damage can be repaired.

Sure, but as we're all in the same closed system, we need to cooperate to the same goal. Saying "sucks to be you, you should have undergone an industrial revolution earlier, now suck it up" to countries we want to cooperate toward the goal isn't probably the best way to move them to our point of view. [Well, that and the fact that Western countries aren't exactly exemplars of reducing their impact, since the "it stops here, no more" allows them to continue doing what they are doing, because it is often also, no less, since it's used to say "no AI, because it requires energy" but "no stopping air travel, because it just stops here, at today's level"].

I'd be all in favour of a system with a personal carbon quota that one could use for either AI or fast fashion or air travel or using a car or eating meat according to his preference. I just don't think it would be feasible.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sure, but as we're all in the same closed system, we need to cooperate to the same goal. Saying "sucks to be you, you should have undergone an industrial revolution earlier" to countries we want to cooperate toward the goal isn't probably the best way to move them to our point of view. [Well, that and the fact that Western countries aren't exactly exemplar of reducing their impact].

Those countries who industrialised earlier have a greater responsibility for climate change now.

But there aint no justice (especially when the guilty have all the power).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sure, but as we're all in the same closed system, we need to cooperate to the same goal. Saying "sucks to be you, you should have undergone an industrial revolution earlier, now suck it up" to countries we want to cooperate toward the goal isn't probably the best way to move them to our point of view. [Well, that and the fact that Western countries aren't exactly exemplars of reducing their impact, since the "it stops here, no more" allows them to continue doing what they are doing, because it is often also, no less, since it's used to say "no AI, because it requires energy" but "no stopping air travel, because it just stops here, at today's level"].

Obviously, “it stops here, no more” while continuing to use resources at their current (or increasing) rates is hypocritical and won’t sway others from following the same path.

So those who are the most advanced & industrialized are the ones who need to lead the efforts to ameliorate the harms caused by those advancements. That includes eschewing certain technologies as too harmful and dialing back the use of certain others.

And if AI is as energy intensive as it’s been reported to be, there’s really no ethical justification for continuing or increasing its use. Especially in those cases where it really doesn’t improve anything and demonstrably erodes the quality of results at a statistically significant level.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Obviously, “it stops here, no more” while continuing to use resources at their current (or increasing) rates is hypocritical and won’t sway others from following the same path.

So those who are the most advanced & industrialized are the ones who need to lead the efforts to ameliorate the harms caused by those advancements. That includes eschewing certain technologies as too harmful and dialing back the use of certain others.

That's probably what we should be doing, collectively. That isn't what we are doing, actually. Because eschewing convenient technologies or activities is a pain, and we collectively aren't doing that. The Kyoto protocol had an objective of reducing emissions by 5% compared to 1990, and the major polluting countries either didn't join the agreement, left it, or disregarded it, so collectively, we are now at +54% vs a -5% target. Obviously, while there are people who say "we should do something", they are either in the minority (with the majority voting for governments that don't take the environment as a priority over comfort) or they are really concerned, but not ready to make the necessary sacrifices. For example, AI users will probably be reluctant to say no to their AI, and oil producers are generally against stopping their fracking plants, and drivers are probably reluctant to say no to their individual cars, and fashionistas are probably reluctant to say no to their fast fashion, and plane travellers are probably reluctant to say no to their long distance holidays. But each of them is saying "maybe we should do something", thinking "maybe we should ban things I don't use". There is also the possibility that all government are dictatorships in disguise and don't have true elections, but this is a political debate that leads nowhere.

If collectively, we had eschewed harmful technologies and dialed back the use of others as you mentionned, we'd be at the Kyoto target. While certainly not ideal, the observed result is that we don't do that. We humans generally don't remove technologies (or don't do anything) on the basis on environmental concern. I won't go into politics, but I don't see a global change in mentalities happening anytime soon.