Can Technology Save the World (Before It Destroys It)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHQR1OBum5Q&t=1210s: "I think it can be great. I mean I think we have the potential to eliminate poverty, solve climate change, cure a huge amount of human disease, like educate everyone in the world phenomenally well"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHQR1OBum5Q&t=1760s: " ... I didn't mean more consumerism I meant just sort of a higher quality of life I think we'll have better education I think we'll have much better health care I think people will have much more time for interpersonal relationships I understand with their families I think we will have probes that go off and colonize the universe I think we will use AI to build technology that sucks carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere .."
> Google’s head of sustainability, Kate Brandt, has claimed multiple times that AI could reduce global emissions between 5 to 10%
In the video, Kate says a report found that there is an opportunity for AI to provide technological solutions that could reduce.
There was an interview of Sam Altman where he said AI can solve climate change. I can't find that video, I asked Gemini about a dozen times to find that video and I get this reply "I encountered an error doing what you asked. Could you try again?". Its the first time I saw this response from any AI. Its almost as if this kind of questioning is not encouraged by AI.
https://ia.samaltman.com/: Although it will happen incrementally, astounding triumphs – fixing the climate, establishing a space colony, and the discovery of all of physics – will eventually become commonplace. With nearly-limitless intelligence and abundant energy – the ability to generate great ideas, and the ability to make them happen – we can do quite a lot.
This is amazing. As the govt grid becomes costlier, wealthier households buy batteries and disconnect, this creates a virtuous cycle of increasing costs, making solar+battery the cheapest source of energy.
People can switch to electric cars, heat pumps, induction stoves. They can plan consumption during peak productivity, keeping emergency power in EV and wipe off their entire electricity bill.
Did we go from a supply crisis to oversupply already? xAI(SpaceX) and Meta are already renting out compute, which means the hard fought and won GPUs/DCs/electricity can't be productively used by them and its better to find some other revenue stream.
Amazon, Google, Microsoft who may have withered AI crash (because they sell shovels) already have competition, how long before we see a lot more companies renting/selling their AI DCs?
> Mining rigs aren’t like stocks — if a stock drops, you can hold and wait, it costs you nothing. A mining rig burns real money every single day it’s running. The moment revenue dips below cost, your money-making asset becomes a hole that bleeds cash. So I shut them down.
This logic applies to AI datacenters too. They cost real money to run, what could potentially be profitable can be a loss very very quickly.
Whats doable with todays technology is to give people walking robots[1] and instantly enable last mine connectivity to all metro/train/bus transit.
Bikes (and e-scooters, one wheels) are a decent solution, but you can't take them in most metros or buses. 2nd/3rd world infrastructure is pothole ridden, not even ready for bikes. Walking can take you everywhere.
One of the examples from the article: Xavier owns an apartment that he rents out at a loss of $1 billion/month. Seeing this success, he decides to make financial commitments to construct $850 billion in new apartments in places nobody wants them. He convinces Ted to leverage everything he owns to help him build the apartments, telling him that once they are built, every human being on Earth will live in them. Ted contributes $100 billion, part of which immediately goes toward paying off Xavier’s $1 billion/month loss. Forbes gives Xavier and Ted a cover feature, likening their building project to God creating the Heavens and the Earth. Many Fortune 500 CEOs take this comparison literally and establish a new religion around Ted and Xavier, with themselves as high priests. Soon, they start a Holy War with the pope, declaring “Ted and Xavier the One True Gods on Earth” and promising to “purge the nonbelievers” in an official press release. They annex, then subsequently demolish, Vatican City, committing another $900 billion dollars to build new apartments in its place. Forbes hails this as “disruptive,” though it’s not clear how Ted and Xavier plan to finance the project.
This is 100 manhattan projects. Lots and lots and lots of things that can be done. Reminds me of the quote "water water everywhere not a drop to drink" ==> Money, money everywhere, not a cent goes towards something remotely useful.
1) Could've added nifty features to roads (rf beacons?) and make it super easy to build autonomous vehicles. This would've solved so many problems, but most importantly 45,000 lives every year and millions of accidents.
2) Could've given the money to farmers who are getting ethanol subsidies today to add panels, supply tons of power to the grid, creating permanent income to the farmers instead of handouts every year.
3) Could've built many Universities permanently free which is feasible with an endowment that large.
4) Could've built walking/biking infrastructure in most cities, which would help reduce healthcare expenses. Most of the expenses today are lifestyle/metabolic diseases.
5) Could've switched the entire country to clean energy, exporting ALL of the oil and create a sovereign wealth fund.
6) Could've built a city for homeless people with homes, excess energy production (solar) providing the function of a UBI, a massive hospital with health and mental health facilities, de-addiction centers. New city in the middle of nowhere where land is dirt cheap. Army corps of engineers could execute this.
Not this time. This time, we'll bail out them out because they are too big to fail and they need the money and assets. Next time we'll definitely get them. Pinky promise.
Most countries have residency by investment programs. Invest in real estate, prop up residential home pricing by injection wealthy foreigner/criminal money. Which imo is pretty idiotic.
> Speaking as someone with a herniated disc that went through a discectomy which re-herniated immediately following surgery.
Sorry to hear about re-herniation. Thats what I am concerned about. I have multiple disc herniations, one with cauda equina. Multiple neurosurgeons have recommended surgery, but each is going to do a different procedure. I understood as they don't fully understand whats the root cause, everyone wants to do the procedure they are comfortable with and what they've been doing. One wants to cut the disc, another remove lamina, another fusion and something else. I decided its not worth taking the risk when they don't know what they are doing. There are so many reports of failed back syndrome, revision surgeries, cascading failures (because it increases pressure on adjacent discs).
> with the caveat that many physios don't seem to know what they're doing either
Yes, this is true of nearly any profession. We just have to spend significant time researching and troubleshooting with an engineering mindset.
Go for surgery if you have neurological symptoms (loss of sensation, motor function, etc). If its pain, try your best to avoid surgery and find the right physiotherapist to help you be pain free. Spine surgery is risky and there is a risk of cascading failures.
Don't completely trust any anesthesiologist (pain management) or neurosurgeon (for surgery) or chiropractor or random folks advice to do yoga/stretch. Spend quite a bit of time understanding the anatomy, read up on everything and maybe you will find the right set of exercises to help relieve pain. Troubleshooting disk/spine/nerve issues is very hard and most doctors don't have any time to investigate it deeply. They just look at MRI. There are lots of people with the same problems showing up on MRI, but they are pain free.