Posted by ezequiel-garzon 10/28/2025
https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/05/20/1116327/ai-energ...
>Given the direction AI is headed—more personalized, able to reason and solve complex problems on our behalf, and everywhere we look—it’s likely that our AI footprint today is the smallest it will ever be. According to new projections published by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in December, by 2028 more than half of the electricity going to data centers will be used for AI. At that point, AI alone could consume as much electricity annually as 22% of all US households.
I'm rather shocked because this article reads very similar to the messaging Jordan Peterson and Bjorn Lomborg for like 2 years.
The other issue is that while he might be right, the worst and biggest consequences of being wrong will not affect Bill. Or, frankly, anyone reading this comment.
It’s such a complicated problem for us humans because we often struggle to conceptualize beyond our own tribes, let alone humans who won’t exist for decades.
But the problem is that IF climate scientists are right - and other than a few cheery cherry picked stats, Bill has no evidence saying otherwise - then the longer we do nothing the bigger the impact.
Will humanity die? Probably not. But will it drastically affect QoL for nearly all humans on the planet save the 1%? Probably.
I hate that thing where you visit a blog post (judging from the URL) yet the blog post is seemingly endless (judging from the scrollbar), and when you scroll down you hop into the next blog post (URL just changes).
The scrollbar is useless in that case, I can't gauge the real length of the article. The Gates Foundation has more money than God, maybe spend a tiny little bit of it on a good UI designer, yeah?
I think it's precisely the problem: they hired an expensive designer, and the designer, for the obscene amount of money they were getting, felt like they had to do something special...
https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/10/06/1124265/bill-gat...
How do we change incentives to be long-term aligned rather than counter-productive, anxious short-termism?
Easy? You develop technology that makes it win-win for everyone. If you give me a choice to improve my QoL or reduce my cost AND reduce my carbon footprint at the same time, I make that choice.
If I have a choice between reducing carbon footprint, but my QoL goes down or costs go up, I won't choose it.
Solving climate change is really really hard. Solving mass media being biased towards alarmism and allergic to nuance, decision-makers in politics and at corporations favoring short-term thinking? Hard enough to make solving climate change look easy.
Questionable how efficient these orgs are, etc., but data shows that more people than ever are being vaccinated and this helps [0].
You can like it or not, but a vaccine against measles helps more than a solar panel to keep a child alive and costs way less.
[0]: https://www.who.int/news/item/24-04-2024-global-immunization...
There's no evidence Gates was ever on Epstein's island, so it is unlikely he has anything interesting to say about it.
The only known connection Gates has to Epstein is a few business meetings.
> But Kudos on acknowledging the growing evidence that the climate change movement is mostly about ideology, money, power and redistributing wealth.
The article did no such thing.
Rich people want to get laid with young , attractive girls who are also well mannered and somewhat cultured and socially mature
Epstein was the curator of that list, kinda like an elite's elite escort agency.
Is the above so hard to grasp and reconcile with? The whole thing has been blown way out of proprtion