[boltzmannbrain]

I agree w/ you, but devil's advocate: Perhaps arriving at "I'm not sure how" is the logic underlying Altman's conclusion. That is, for any problem x that human's attempt but cannot seem to wrap their heads around (i.e. resolve to "I'm not sure how to solve x"), then x is in the family of AGI-hard problems. Here x = climate change, and b/c we don't know how to solve x (be it challenges across tech/social/political/etc.), let's build AGI and hope it can figure that mess out.

[diafygi]

Hmmmm, the issue with train of thought is that it assumes Altman is dismissing many other energy experts' who are saying they do know how to solve x. Silicon Valley can't be that much of a bubble to think that just because it hasn't figured out how to deal with climate change, that no one else can either.

[ngrilly]

That's wishful thinking. Humanity was not sure how to solve x, until it was solved. It happened all the time. For example, Gödel or Einstein work were major breakthrough, and we didn't wait AGI to solve this.

I'm not saying AGI is useless. On the contrary, I think it could be extremely useful. But we need to act very quickly to limit the negative consequences of climate change. Waiting for an hypothetical AGI would be foolish.

[boltzmannbrain]

Taking off my devil's advocate hat (horns?)... I agree. Even if we use that logic to punt some problems to AGI -- e.g. solve near-light speed travel, or space-based solar power -- we cannot afford to sit idly by while climate change destroys the planet.

[ngrilly]

Yes, near-light speed travel is a great problem to solve with AGI! And maybe even faster-than-light travel! Now, you got me excited :-)