Technology

59549 readers

3417 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

908

Former Google CEO says climate goals are not meetable, so we might as well drop climate conservation — unshackle AI companies so AI can solve global warming (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 1 month ago by Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

303 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] echodot@feddit.uk -5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Plus nuclear fusion. If AI could give us Fusion that would massively help so I suppose that would be useful I'm just not sure that it would be useful enough given the fact that we will probably be able to achieve Fusion on our own eventually.

Of course AI could come along and give us, negative mass energy extractors or something, but that's deep in the realm of Sci-Fi so who really knows.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If AI could give us nuclear fusion, it would have already. Instead, we're burning the world down so Google's AI Overview can give me a grab bag of bad advise.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 1 month ago

Well no because if AI could give us Fusion in the future it wouldn't have already done so in the past.

I don't understand what you're saying

[–] frezik@midwest.social 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If we had a fusion reactor developed today that showed net energy gain for the entire facility, it would be 10 years before it could be designed into a practical commercial reactor. So no, that's not going to save us at this point either way.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Allow me to present the most frustrating graph in the world:

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Have we tried using the energy generated by spinning dead scientists?

[–] isolatedscotch@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

and in 10 years time, it's gonna be 10 years away

Just use solar (and renewables in general, but not everybody has a river or wind), there's no need to create more energy from fusion when you can just harness the energy created and shoved to us by the sun

[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

HVDC solves the "not everybody has a river/sun/wind". The longest one in the world is in Brazil, and goes for 1300 miles. Similar builds in the US would mean wind in Nebraska could power New York City, and solar in Arizona could power Chicago, and hydro anywhere can store power from anywhere.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

but not everybody has a river

Ah, but just wait a few years...

[–] isolatedscotch@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 month ago

more of a flood then a river /s