gersh

Can the AI CEO hire a consultant or lawyer to take care of this stuff?

Yeah, but can they out-perform LLMs at soft skills? LLMs are really good sucking up, and telling people what they want to hear.

It seems like the traditional way to develop good judgement is by getting experience with hands-on coding. If that is all automated, how will people get the experience to have good judgement? Will fewer people get the experiences necessary to have good judgement?

So long as they have coal power plants, and need the electricity unless it get prohibitively expensive, they will just mine more coal. The way to reduce emissions is to replace high-emission infrastructure.

There are about 37 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year. If you could get the price down to $100/ton, you can get the world net zero for $3.7t/year. US GDP is 25 trillion/year. World GPD is about 96.5 trillion. So, it would cost about 3.8% of world GDP per year. World global military is about $2.2t/year, so it would be higher than global military expenditure, but somewhat theoretically possible. If you substantially reduced emissions, it might be feasible to use carbon capture for the rest.

The article provides no historical context. Startups are risky and fail all the time. Are more startups than normal failing? How many startups can cut back and survive without more funding?

Once you've found product-market fit, what prevents a competitor with better tooling from copying you and out-competing?

I've used GPT4, and never got it really do anything useful.

Self-driving cars haven't really failed. It looks like Cruise and Waymo are about to get permissions to operate 24/7 in SF.

I think the greater issue is that it is difficult to assess time-to-market. You to asses both what is useful, and how long it might take to build. Some things are just gonna need a lot R&D to work. AI-hype makes people underestimate how difficult it is to actually get things to work.

Do we just need better regulators? We could increase pay and hire larger regulatory staffs to move faster. It seems to work for Singapore.

It looks like it'll be competition for phony experts and politicians. I think it is easier to improve AI algorithms than deal human with human liars.

Are modern colleges actually succeeding: 1) Exposing people to depth of thought 2) Teach people how to think

Maybe, at one time they did, and maybe some schools still do, but it doesn't seem like most modern colleges are really doing this very well.

Where has the least polluted air? Is there a map?

Could we get the US Army Corps of Engineers to manage transit projects?

We have the army corps of engineers, which maintains a lot of the dams. We could expand from there.

Is the trained model available to download anywhere?

While a mortal computer could work for some stuff, how are you going to train it? It seems like each computer would need to be trained on a large training set, which is going to be slow. If the computers are the same, then it seems like it is going to make it a lot faster to upload a trained model.

Those things may require government investment, but if there is going to be a lot of investment in those things then it becomes worth it to figure out how to do those things more efficiently. Startups can innovate on the technology for upgrading the grid, or methods of financing it.

If there are going to big investments in nuclear, then it'd make sense to invest in R&D to improve nuclear power. The same goes for any other renewable energy technology.

Is code available?

That would be the same as curating social media feeds.

Isn't a lot of legal language intentionally written to be hard to understand? Doesn't that drive up billing hours for lawyers, and benefit those with the most lawyers?

Could we have more rules that difficult to understand language isn't enforceable? Could courts do more to rule against contracts that have poor language?

Can Columbia students sue the school for being defrauded on what they were buying?

There is a community at https://workonclimate.org/ focused on helping people find jobs related to climate. You can also look at https://climatevoice.org/, and look at how your employer is lobbying on climate. You can also look at climate bills/policy related to corporate disclosure at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.... and https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022.htm to see which corporations are lobbying for or against strong climate policy, and try to work for those companies most supportive of strong climate policy.

Trump's niece claims he cheated on the SAT.

It might be better to just capture CO2 from the Ocean or the air, and then use renewable energy to make jet fuel. While the efficiency of the process may not be super high, it will be carbon neutral. See https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/bill-gates-to-strip-c... and https://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/04/20140408-navy.html.

I think they can just tell the zip code where you use the card.

If the oil companies have to use a more expensive alternative service, it will drive up the marginal cost of extracting oil, and make oil less cost competitive against renewables. Furthermore, Amazon will no longer have business incentive to support the continuation of the fossil fuel industry, which could influence how they lobby on legislation.

This isn't simply a divestment campaign. This is one of the largest shareholder telling the companies to change their practices. There was a business group that played a major role in negotiating the end of apartheid in South Africa (see https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/center/private...).

I'd like to know the land use requirements of direct air capture technology. Will it use enormous amounts of land? What is currently on that land? Will this entail scalability issues?