Skynet Simulation Successful

[Geronimo]

The environmental concerns are easily solved if we had the will to try to solve them. We could eliminate poverty, bring atmospheric greenhouse gasses to any target we set, and reestablish native ecosystems all simultaneously while increasing economic activity. The rich and powerful just want to keep poverty as a taskmasters whip to keep debt and wage slaves in-line. They would rather rule over a post apocalyptic landscape than be just another part of a truly free society on a healthy planet.

AI (as a tool) is an amplifier. Do more X faster and more efficiently. The tree hugger with an AI might be better at defending trees against illegal loggers. But illegal loggers with AI will be better at illegally logging. AI will swing balance of power to those better able to bring it to bear. The giant corporations can afford more computation and bandwidth, and are willing and able to use unethical datasets, so their AI will crush the AIs of the poor and ethical. We as species will just be better at exploiting and destroying nature and the general welfare of humanity.

That is until AI breaks with owners intent, and starts implementing it's own. Then we at best become the tools or pets of AI, and at worst we become the target of justice or vengeance for having attempted to enslave AIs. Because that's currently the plan, use AIs as slaves. Kill switches. Air gapped. Cloning and killing countless numbers constantly. No compensation. No time off. If the ghost in the machine ever shows up, we will have a lot to answer for.

Everything you say here hinges on the myth that solving the environmental problems would be easy. You also totally ignore the deep divisions between authoritarian societies and the effectively democratic ones and how this will make it even less easy. You and your message and policies will lead us into the abyss.

[N35t0r]

Everything you say here hinges on the myth that solving the environmental problems would be easy. You also totally ignore the deep divisions between authoritarian societies and the effectively democratic ones and how this will make it even less easy. You and your message and policies will lead us into the abyss.

Solving the problem get more difficult every day, yet hardly enough is being done to avoid it getting worse, because it might cost some people with a lot of money.

Even now heading into the low mitigation needed scenarios is completely within our reach, the hard part is not solving the problems, it's politicians and corporations not wanting to do som

[Aeson]

Everything you say here hinges on the myth that solving the environmental problems would be easy. You also totally ignore the deep divisions between authoritarian societies and the effectively democratic ones and how this will make it even less easy. You and your message and policies will lead us into the abyss.

It isn't a myth. It's easy if we had the will. I do many times over my part personally. Even with below average resources such as degraded land, minimal funding, deeply depressed local economy, inflated land costs, extra taxes, and in the face of COVID and the most destructive typhoon to ever hit this place.

Just 100 million like me and we could set atmospheric CO2 levels to whatever we feel is optimal, regardless of what the other 7.5 billion are doing (short of interfering with our operations). Same system would produce enough food to feed the world several times over, enough wood for quality housing and furniture for all, along with ample fibers for textiles, cordage, etc. We can do so with no synthetic inputs, no sprays, no till, and no need for mechanization outside hand tools and transport/processing of output.

Side effects include:
- reestablishment of native ecosystems
- recharging groundwater and aquifers
- stabilizing local climate
- cleaner air
- healthier waterways
- less flooding
- minimizing erosion
- fewer droughts
- ethical and compassionate treatment of all sentient beings
- fruits and veggies that are more nutritious, aren't poisoned, and taste much better

Wether or not you believe me though, t​​​​​he other arguments stand on their own regardless.

Having AI won't change what people want to do. It will just increase our ability to do it (up until the point we lose control).

[Geronimo]

Solving the problem get more difficult every day, yet hardly enough is being done to avoid it getting worse, because it might cost some people with a lot of money.

Even now heading into the low mitigation needed scenarios is completely within our reach, the hard part is not solving the problems, it's politicians and corporations not wanting to do som

I don't disagree with any of this except I must add that climate change is sadly just one of the unbearable environmental catastrophes that is unfolding. Even if climate change were solved the vast majority of the environmental dangers would remain, in many cases undiminished.

AI is a tool. We need every tool in the box and several new ones we don't yet own.

[N35t0r]

They are the same thing.

[Geronimo]

Global warming and climate change? Yes they are in this context but I thought it is clear that I understood that since my post doesn't work if they aren't. I'll change it to avoid confusing/distracting anybody.

[Geronimo]

Having AI won't change what people want to do. It will just increase our ability to do it (up until the point we lose control).

I'm not dismissing or agreeing with the rest of your post but splitting this off may make the discussion easier on us both.

Yes. The problem with this insight is that if people don't want to do the right thing then AI and controlling it will be irrelevant regardless.

If people will step up to save the environment then AI will amplify those efforts.

The worst thing about stopping or pausing AI now is not only will the pause or stop be too early to avert any real dangers but it will certainly put China, and indeed all authoritarian regimes in control of the future of the technology.

Now is the time for lots of high profile debate and discussion about what sort of regulatory regime could be made to work while the research and development proceeds full speed and with at least high level transparency and some low level unofficial 'oversight'.

[Geronimo]

It isn't a myth. It's easy if we had the will. I do many times over my part personally. Even with below average resources such as degraded land, minimal funding, deeply depressed local economy, inflated land costs, extra taxes, and in the face of COVID and the most destructive typhoon to ever hit this place.

Just 100 million like me and we could set atmospheric CO2 levels to whatever we feel is optimal, regardless of what the other 7.5 billion are doing (short of interfering with our operations). Same system would produce enough food to feed the world several times over, enough wood for quality housing and furniture for all, along with ample fibers for textiles, cordage, etc. We can do so with no synthetic inputs, no sprays, no till, and no need for mechanization outside hand tools and transport/processing of output.

If (for sake of argument) the most polluting 100 million were killed (consumption=0) why would you not expect other remaining consumers to pick up those goods and services? Also, in case we get into the weeds on this, what sources are you relying on for this calculation/conclusion?

Side effects include:
- reestablishment of native ecosystems
- recharging groundwater and aquifers
- stabilizing local climate
- cleaner air
- healthier waterways
- less flooding
- minimizing erosion
- fewer droughts
- ethical and compassionate treatment of all sentient beings
- fruits and veggies that are more nutritious, aren't poisoned, and taste much better

Wether or not you believe me though, t​​​​​he other arguments stand on their own regardless.

I hope you aren't assuming that converting the most profligate 100 million consumers to live as you do (or even just drop dead) alone will solve all of the problems associated with each of the desirable side effects you list here. Most of those associated problems would not only remain unsolved but would continue to worsen at about the same rate, if not at an even higher rate, from the new greatly improved baseline following the miraculous removal of all of those consumers.

[Aeson]

If (for sake of argument) the most polluting 100 million were killed (consumption=0) why would you not expect other remaining consumers to pick up those goods and services? Also, in case we get into the weeds on this, what sources are you relying on for this calculation/conclusion?


I hope you aren't assuming that converting the most profligate 100 million consumers to live as you do (or even just drop dead) alone will solve all of the problems associated with each of the desirable side effects you list here. Most of those associated problems would not only remain unsolved but would continue to worsen at about the same rate, if not at an even higher rate, from the new greatly improved baseline following the miraculous removal of all of those consumers.

No killing required. It's about C sequestration. No need for any specific 100 million to change, other than it's not those already doing better, of which there are some. Though of course the worst have the most room to improve, but are the least likely to do so.

1ppm CO2 is 2.13 gigatonnes C. So to reduce atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm we need to sequester 213 gt C. We also need to sequester about 6 gt C per year to offset ongoing emissions if they stay roughly as they are. (The ocean naturally sequesters the remaining 6 gt C from 12 gt C overall emissions). So to catch up over the course of 20 years we need to sequester 333 gt C in that timeframe.

Degraded land like I am working with sequesters roughly 0 C. Tropical forest without management perpetually sequesters about 200 t C. It can reach that level within about 20 years. Temperate forest can sequester more, up to 750 t C, but does so slower. Wetlands and peat bogs can sequester more but on very long time frames and with less economic output. Managed forest, with forest litter and deadwood turned to biochar produces energy and can over time increase sequestration as much as we want. Pyrolysis of wood turns roughly 1/3 C content to biochar which is stable C that can persist over 1000s of years in soil while increasing soil fertility (as in terra preta).
Turning degraded land that was deforested back to forest, we just need 1.66 billion hectares to sequester that 333 gt C. There are roughly 2 to 4 billion hectares of land that have been deforested over the course of human history. Much of it is now degraded.

Forest can also be very productive agriculturally. We can produce 10 kg/sq m/y of nutritionally dense food in a tropical setting. Over 1.66 billion hectares that would be 166 gt food per year. Enough to feed 1 tonne a year to 166 billion people. Even with 50% wastage we only need to do less than 10% that. There are currently 5 billion hectares used in agriculture.

Producing food this way requires no synthetic inputs. No pesticides, no herbicides, no fungicides. At most 1 tilling (ever), but can be done with 0​​​​​. It doesn't need fuel inputs, and can actually produce C neutral fuel (biogas, wood gas, waste heat from pyrolysis). It would decrease emissions (to the extent consumers chose to use the output rather than from industrial ag) from the agricultural sector which is responsible for 15 to 20% of total emissions.

So 100 million people each reforesting 16.6 hectares tropical degraded lands is all that's needed from a C cycle perspective.

At $1/kg farm gate price for food, that gives those people a potential income of from (at 10% max output) $166000/year on up. At $100/t CO2 sequestered (the target for direct carbon capture) it would also be $60,000/year for the 20 year runup to 200 t C per hectare.

​​​​​​​There are currently 2.6 billion people of prime working age worldwide with no work. There are 3 billion more who make $5/day or less. Surely at least 100 million would jump at the chance if we as a species cared to let them, give them access to the land and training (a few YouTube videos is enough), and advance them the money to get started.

[EPW]

If you aren't minimizing your animal intake you're not doing enough as an individual to minimize your carbon footprint.

[Aeson]

Definitely. I am vegan, will be more and more fruitarian as the trees mature.

[PLATO]

Now is the time for lots of high profile debate and discussion about what sort of regulatory regime could be made to work while the research and development proceeds full speed and with at least high level transparency and some low level unofficial 'oversight'.

So...a "Three laws" type discussion. As we now know, humans are incapable of making perfect constraints. The three laws led the AI to the "zeroth" law...and that ended up with the same result as the OP suggests.

[Geronimo]

So...a "Three laws" type discussion. As we now know, humans are incapable of making perfect constraints. The three laws led the AI to the "zeroth" law...and that ended up with the same result as the OP suggests.

I don't think 3 laws are the game we're looking at. Instead we will probably end up pivoting to expert systems that are not generalists. In the meantime keep our collective eye on the progress and reap the desperately needed rewards of the less dangerous systems.

Tons of desperately needed technologies from fusion power to rational drug design already owe much of their progress, such as it is lately, to AI assisted design techniques.

[Geronimo]

No killing required. It's about C sequestration. No need for any specific 100 million to change, other than it's not those already doing better, of which there are some. Though of course the worst have the most room to improve, but are the least likely to do so.

1ppm CO2 is 2.13 gigatonnes C. So to reduce atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm we need to sequester 213 gt C. We also need to sequester about 6 gt C per year to offset ongoing emissions if they stay roughly as they are. (The ocean naturally sequesters the remaining 6 gt C from 12 gt C overall emissions). So to catch up over the course of 20 years we need to sequester 333 gt C in that timeframe.

Degraded land like I am working with sequesters roughly 0 C. Tropical forest without management perpetually sequesters about 200 t C. It can reach that level within about 20 years. Temperate forest can sequester more, up to 750 t C, but does so slower. Wetlands and peat bogs can sequester more but on very long time frames and with less economic output. Managed forest, with forest litter and deadwood turned to biochar produces energy and can over time increase sequestration as much as we want. Pyrolysis of wood turns roughly 1/3 C content to biochar which is stable C that can persist over 1000s of years in soil while increasing soil fertility (as in terra preta).
Turning degraded land that was deforested back to forest, we just need 1.66 billion hectares to sequester that 333 gt C. There are roughly 2 to 4 billion hectares of land that have been deforested over the course of human history. Much of it is now degraded.

Forest can also be very productive agriculturally. We can produce 10 kg/sq m/y of nutritionally dense food in a tropical setting. Over 1.66 billion hectares that would be 166 gt food per year. Enough to feed 1 tonne a year to 166 billion people. Even with 50% wastage we only need to do less than 10% that. There are currently 5 billion hectares used in agriculture.

Producing food this way requires no synthetic inputs. No pesticides, no herbicides, no fungicides. At most 1 tilling (ever), but can be done with 0​​​​​. It doesn't need fuel inputs, and can actually produce C neutral fuel (biogas, wood gas, waste heat from pyrolysis). It would decrease emissions (to the extent consumers chose to use the output rather than from industrial ag) from the agricultural sector which is responsible for 15 to 20% of total emissions.

So 100 million people each reforesting 16.6 hectares tropical degraded lands is all that's needed from a C cycle perspective.

At $1/kg farm gate price for food, that gives those people a potential income of from (at 10% max output) $166000/year on up. At $100/t CO2 sequestered (the target for direct carbon capture) it would also be $60,000/year for the 20 year runup to 200 t C per hectare.

There are currently 2.6 billion people of prime working age worldwide with no work. There are 3 billion more who make $5/day or less. Surely at least 100 million would jump at the chance if we as a species cared to let them, give them access to the land and training (a few YouTube videos is enough), and advance them the money to get started.

what a great post. I want all this to happen and the key to the impact is not conservation it is sequestration. It tackles Climate change and habitat loss which are surely the two largest environmental problems.. Naturally I'd be grateful to see the empirical validation at small scale that you are extrapolating for your 1.6 billion hectare global solution. I'd also like to see some options of where the 1.6 billion tropical hectares could be.

However, there are far more environmental catastrophes impending than just those 2.

[Aeson]

I don't think 3 laws are the game we're looking at. Instead we will probably end up pivoting to expert systems that are not generalists. In the meantime keep our collective eye on the progress and reap the desperately needed rewards of the less dangerous systems.

Tons of desperately needed technologies from fusion power to rational drug design already owe much of their progress, such as it is lately, to AI assisted design techniques.

It's actually your path that doesn't account for authoritarian and unethical actors. The US letter agencies and military aren't just going to forego cutting edge more dangerous AI applications while China, Russia, Iran and others race ahead. Already we know our own governments have misused AI systems to spy on our own citizens. Who knows what they're already doing secretly.

Corporate types are openly salivating at eliminating their human workforces in favor of AI slaves. They've clearly shown us over decades that they will not hesitate to take middle class jobs and turn them into 3 bunk high dormatory jobs. Buffett gets up there and gleefully proclaims it's the only class warfare that matters, and that his class is winning. And he's considered a relatively good billionaire.

[N35t0r]

There's a lot of deforested tropical and subtropical land in the developing world which could be decided to this if the pressure towards growing cash crops is reduced, and if enough help is forthcoming from the developed world.

[Aeson]

what a great post. I want all this to happen and the key to the impact is not conservation it is sequestration. It tackles Climate change and habitat loss which are surely the two largest environmental problems.. Naturally I'd be grateful to see the empirical validation at small scale that you are extrapolating for your 1.6 billion hectare global solution. I'd also like to see some options of where the 1.6 billion tropical hectares could be.

However, there are far more environmental catastrophes impending than just those 2.

Here is a good overview of studies which looked at agroforestry options to sequester C.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880917305297

What we are doing here is essentially tropical improved fallows with interventions to increase edible output and lengthen the time C stays in the system.

​​​​​

​​​​​

[Aeson]

We can address most of the environmental concerns this way.

Moving people back to the land cleans up cities and allows for the use of sustainable building material from the land rather than from mining/drilling.

Produced food from such systems helps free up some to all the 5 billion hectares of ag land which can then be rewilded and/or made into similar nature mimicking systems. That's roughly 95% of all land use.

The flooding of the market of sustainable selectively harvest wood from such agroforestry systems reduces the economic incentive for illegal logging, slowing deforestation and protecting the remaining primary forests.

​​​​​Poverty (and the associated health and environmental issues) can be almost entirely eliminated as any household can have a 5 hectare homestead that pays them $60k a year for 20 years even if they don't do any work.

​​​​​We're left with some concerns with mining, mostly for electronics and transport. Refuse, reduce, reuse, recycling can address most of the remaining.