To counter : Here's just one example from just this week in which the application of computing power has yielded a leap forward in energy processes that may readily be applied to CDR
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160901211410.htm On 7 Sep 2016 01:47, "Michael Trachtenberg" <mi...@aesop.rutgers.edu> wrote: > HI Adam, > > The majority of physical chemical processes while controlled will not be > accelerated greatly beyond known maxima simply by applying computing > capabilities. > > Mike > > *Michael Trachtenberg, PhD* > Visiting Scientist > Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology > Rutgers University > New Brunswick, NJ > mi...@aesop.rutgers.edu > 609-610-6227 > > > > On Sep 6, 2016, at 7:08 PM, Adam Dorr <adamd...@ucla.edu> wrote: > > As I explain in detail in the papers I attached and in my other recent > work, there are two problems with this reasoning. The first hinges is how > we define prudence. *Ignoring *a possibility until evidence guarantees > that the outcome is certain is, I argue, not at all prudent. And the second > is that there is already a veritable mountain of evidence that arrival of > the specific technologies I described (namely, narrow artificial > intelligence and machine labor) is already imminent - to say nothing of the > overwhelming confidence we can have that these technologies will have > arrived by, say, 2050 or 2075. Self-driving cars are the clearest prominent > example, but there are many others. > > Best, > > > Adam > > -- > Adam Dorr > University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs > Urban Planning PhD Candidate > adamd...@ucla.edu > adamd...@gmail.com > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:16 AM, R. T. Pierrehumbert < > phys1...@nexus.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Yeah, and maybe they’ll get controlled fusion working too. It would be >> imprudent to bank on such things until there is real evidence that it will >> happen. >> >> On Sep 6, 2016, at 12:57 AM, Adam Dorr <adamd...@ucla.edu> wrote: >> >> >> To take just one prominent example, I think that too few folks are giving >> serious consideration to the *explosion *in CDR feasibility (and other >> ecological restoration capacities) that is likely to follow the arrival of >> widespread narrowly intelligent machine labor (i.e. the AI of the sort that >> can drive a car, not the *general *sort that is self-aware and wants to >> take over the world). Dismissing this as science fiction might have been >> reasonable 20 years ago. But today, with cars that can drive themselves >> right over the horizon, I feel very strongly that it is intellectually lazy >> and socially irresponsible to continue doing so. Other imminent >> technological changes will also have a profound impact on the feasibility >> of various CDR approaches. It would be helpful if all who are actively >> engaged in this arena could take care to avoid some of the more common >> general errors in reasoning about the future, so that they may think more >> clearly about the policy, planning, and other implications of technological >> change. >> >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
