> I think it's worth understanding the technology so we can have informed strategies for how to best regulate it.

There's a significant difference between understanding a technology and using a technology. We can understand how a technology is made without totally changing our workflows to rely on it essentially.

How many cities do we have to blow up to understand nuclear weapons? That's a serious question, because atomic bombs were dropped on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

> We don't solve the climate crisis by abandoning all the technological progress which has put such a strain on our ecosystem, we solve it by rethinking how we use this technology

I don't think that's true. Shouldn't we abandon fossil fuels? Switch to cleaner energy, solar, wind, geothermal, electric cars, etc.?

▲

nixpulvis 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If a thinking machine can find new mathematical proofs we haven't thought of yet, it might also find new medicines and other things that really do make it worth finding a way to live with. If I can ask the thinking machine to find bugs in my code and it does, that seems nice to have.

The analysis that I want is on a studied cost/value basis somehow. I'd start by trying to force tech companies to sell products at cost sooner, so it's not driving markets before it can truly be absorbed. I'd also ask for energy/resource consumers to be forced to buy climate credits which are used to help offset the impacts and fund research and development for sustainable technology.

	▲	jcgrillo an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> The analysis that I want is on a studied cost/value basis somehow. Absolutely. The AI ROI question is the entire ballgame. Earlier today I heard the term "jagged technology" for the first time, and it's an extremely good one. Given how jagged AI appears to be, anecdotal reports are all over the place. It also doesn't help that it appears heavily using this technology can affect people psychologically. The information environment for someone who wants to know what this tool is good for and what it isn't is.. treacherous. Some clear, objective grounding would really help.
	▲	lapcat 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Humans can already find new medicines and bugs in code. We didn't need AI to find the Covid vaccines, for example. > The analysis that I want is on a studied cost/value basis somehow. If something is immoral, do the ends justify the means? I would reiterate that you originally mentioned moral problems. > I'd start by trying to force tech companies to sell products at cost sooner, so it's not driving markets before it can truly be absorbed. That sounds an awful lot like abolishing capitalism. Which might actually help with the climate crisis, regardless of AI. > climate credits These always seemed like BS to me, a way for wealthy corporations to buy their way out of doing anything.