I have a different perspective on this given that I view climate change as the biggest threat we face as a species.

I feel like robotics is the only hope we have to be able to scale action against climate change. It's clear that emissions reduction is just not going to happen, and catastrophic warming is inevitable. Therefore we will have to do an extraordinary amount of labor in order to modify our environment to save civilization from sea level rise and to be able to repair damages caused by natural disasters. There just aren't enough humans to do everything that is going to need to be done.

It sure would have been nice to have 100 thousand firefighting robots battling the fires in Los Angeles last year.

Given that we need better AI in order to make these robots happen, I view AI as a critical technology that we need to maintain civilization.

▲

arduanika 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Upvoted because this is an interesting take, but I disagree at least somewhat. I think you should be wary whenever you've narrowed down your options to, "in order to solve the top-priority problem X, our only hope is solution Y."

I agree that some technological solution might be the key to dealing with the climate, and that maybe robots would be part of such a solution, maybe powered by similar techniques as the current wave of AI. It's not an insane scenario, but it's worth keeping your perspective open to other possible developments.

	▲	tcoff91 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I definitely am open to other possible developments and accept that I'm likely wrong just as basically everyone is wrong when predicting the future.

▲

derektank 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wouldn’t geoengineering through stratospheric aerosol engineering (likely with sulfates) be both cheaper and less technically challenging than changing the built environment? If we’re accepting massive climate changes anyways, it seems like taking the risk with solar radiation modifications would be the next step

▲

dpark 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Ah, yes. Let us spray more sulfates into the air. Let’s fight global warming by poisoning all the waterways and oceans with more acid rain.

▲

derektank 4 days ago | parent [-]

The sulfate concentrations required to meaningfully reduce solar radiation is orders of magnitude below the level that causes acid rain. The Tambora eruption didn’t result in global acid rain (though it did in Indonesia, naturally) while cooling the globe by at least half a degree Celsius if not more. And on top of that, there are other possible aerosols we could use, like calcium carbonate

	▲	dpark 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I’m not sure your example supports your claim. We got an half degree cooling and all it took was the biggest eruption in recorded human history. Plus everyone’s crops died and the sulfur compounds caused lung disease.

▲

tcoff91 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That would require global consensus and could ignite wars if there isn't global consensus. Seems very likely that this could have unanticipated consequences that could be worse, but admittedly this is an area I don't really know much about.

	▲	ACCount37 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		No one gives a shit about "global consensus". As demonstrated in 2020s by multiple countries taking major unilateral actions unopposed. If a nuclear power starts SAI, what is everyone else going to do? Shake their fists at the sky, realistically.

▲

graemep 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That is interesting, and I think you are right that emissions reductions will not happen any time soon (eventually, but it will take a while).

I am not convinced we need robots. A lot of it is not all that hard to do. For example, better forestry management to prevent forest fires. A lot of cities rebuild big chunks of their infrastructure over a century or so anyway. The problem is more social and political - you get worse forest management because you can blame climate change when it happens.

▲

irishcoffee 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://www.howeandhowe.com/civil/thermite

The firefighting robots of which you speak already exist.

▲

tcoff91 4 days ago | parent [-]

Hell yeah, those look awesome. I look forward to the autonomous versions that don't require fully manual remote operation. It'd be great if coordinators could have like an RTS-style view and command these like they're starcraft units.

	▲	irishcoffee 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		… they can.

▲

dpark 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It sure would have been nice to have 100 thousand firefighting robots battling the fires in Los Angeles last year.

Yes, but also 100k firefighting robots is kind of a lot. How many firefighting robots should exist in the world? And how many seawall-building robots for the rising sea level? And how many other robots? At what point does the environmental cost of all these robots offset their benefits?

▲

alexk307 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> extraordinary amount of labor in order to modify our environment to save civilization from sea level rise and to be able to repair damages caused by natural disasters

Do you really think that 1-2 feet of sea level rise will wipe out humanity? Can you cite any examples of natural disasters increasing in frequency or severity due to increased green house gas concentrations? Would AI help with any of that?