Runaway warming leading to a hot "supergreenhouse" climate was theorized. Alterbatively a snowpiercer scenario creating a snowball earth.

Or, once billions of people die from climate change, planetary wars will start on the last hospitable areas, leading to the end of humanity.

In contrast, AI ending "humanity" is limited by our own material power, would likely be stoppable, and would not easily reach areas isolated from technology

▲

pingou 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Why would it not easily reach areas isolated from technology? If a nefarious AI wins a war, it would be one of the easiest thing for it to locate any survivors anywhere on the planet.

	▲	ben_w 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I suspect you two are discussing different AI. I think you (and I, and everyone who wants AI development to pause while we catch up with the implications at least) is looking where the ball is going. I have the general (non specific to anyone in this thread) impression that people who think it can't end humanity, are looking where the ball is today. Current AI obviously can't "locate any survivors anywhere on the planet". Where the ball is going… well, much as I don't believe Musk's timelines for anything, he is trying to sell his Optimus robots as a "robot army", about them running factories, about factories on the moon etc. I suspect the moon-factory "idea" was someone asking Grok, given how the numbers don't really work for building compute as well as power, but the scale of that is enough to change Earth's equilibrium temperature by… I forget, but IIRC it's many tens of Kelvin rather than single-K from global warming if this was all put in LEO for some reason.