Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
davieG

Technology, Science and the Environment.

By davieG, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Zear0

Zear0

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Line-X said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/technology/ai-google-chatbot-engineer-quits-hinton.html

 

I do find a lot of the arguments coming out from "the top" of this sector a bit confusing.  Simply, what exactly is going on in this sector that people didn't expect to happen?  He specifies "misinformation", but it's become clear to me that with January 6th, COVID, Brexit and Ukraine that you don't need advance technology to brainwash people, just tell people what they want to hear and they'll go with it.  Pope in his Balenciaga coat is just a more visual representation of "COVID-19 is under control", "£350 million a week for the NHS" or "I won the election".

 

Slight tangent from the article, and pure speculation on my part, but I suspect he's slightly aghast at Google's recent efforts.  It seems strange to even contemplate a juggernaut like Google becoming irrelevant in the near future, but it's a credible prospect.  The use of LLM interfaces will surely replace traditional search engines (why "Google" a question, find a website, read website for an answer when the LLM can just give you the answer?) which their entire business hangs off.  Combined with fairly obvious evidence that ChatGPT is far more capable than Bard, it seems likely they'll be more lax on the "moral constraints" associated with rapid development of this tech.  If the zenith of this technology is that these things become truly self-developing (seems doable to me), then first is everything in this sector so everyone will be going balls out to get there.  Proof of this to me is Elon's laughable stance in the "Future of Life Institute" position and then setting up X.Ai weeks later.  "Civilisation and humanity are doomed, but I can't afford not to miss out on this pie". Sour grapes at being muscled out by MS is his main gripe, but this is an arms race and the competition means nobody is going to slow down as they can't afford not to.

 

Some other rambling thoughts on the subject is my genuine surprise at not so much the rate of development of the tech, but the speed at which it's been launched and now utilised by "everyday" users.  My company has already been using the api parts of GPT 4.0 and it's been revolutionary for certain tasks we do.  Noting is the first stab at this, it is slightly frightening to step up in capability this has enabled in little over 6 months; I couldn't have dreamed we'd be using these tools in the timescales we are.  I guess this comes back to my point on user access.  Nobody really cared when it was AlphaFold working on Protein Structures or playing Starcraft, now that this is enabling everyday people to do everyday tasks with ease, it's making people twitchy.  The cynic in me knows that Google are not the good guys and it's classic that mass use of a tech is somehow more frightening than exclusive tech owned by Google, MS or heaven forbid Facebook.

 

I personally am embracing this tech and think they should crack on.  As Mark says in Peep Show "Judgement Day isn't necessarily going to happen".  The less drudgery my staff do, the more opportunity's can be pursued to the benefit of us all.  I'm not a futurist, but I also don't think we're walking towards The Matrix...yet.

  • Like 2
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

Some astute observations above.

 

My own take is one that I'll keep brief; it's like a lot of other very advanced tech in that developing and using it has very real risks, but if we don't apply it then it's near a certainty that we'll be left wanting at a time of some natural crisis in the future anyway.

SpacedX

SpacedX

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Zear0 said:

I do find a lot of the arguments coming out from "the top" of this sector a bit confusing.  Simply, what exactly is going on in this sector that people didn't expect to happen?  He specifies "misinformation", but it's become clear to me that with January 6th, COVID, Brexit and Ukraine that you don't need advance technology to brainwash people, just tell people what they want to hear and they'll go with it.  Pope in his Balenciaga coat is just a more visual representation of "COVID-19 is under control", "£350 million a week for the NHS" or "I won the election".

 

Slight tangent from the article, and pure speculation on my part, but I suspect he's slightly aghast at Google's recent efforts.  It seems strange to even contemplate a juggernaut like Google becoming irrelevant in the near future, but it's a credible prospect.  The use of LLM interfaces will surely replace traditional search engines (why "Google" a question, find a website, read website for an answer when the LLM can just give you the answer?) which their entire business hangs off.  Combined with fairly obvious evidence that ChatGPT is far more capable than Bard, it seems likely they'll be more lax on the "moral constraints" associated with rapid development of this tech.  If the zenith of this technology is that these things become truly self-developing (seems doable to me), then first is everything in this sector so everyone will be going balls out to get there.  Proof of this to me is Elon's laughable stance in the "Future of Life Institute" position and then setting up X.Ai weeks later.  "Civilisation and humanity are doomed, but I can't afford not to miss out on this pie". Sour grapes at being muscled out by MS is his main gripe, but this is an arms race and the competition means nobody is going to slow down as they can't afford not to.

 

Some other rambling thoughts on the subject is my genuine surprise at not so much the rate of development of the tech, but the speed at which it's been launched and now utilised by "everyday" users.  My company has already been using the api parts of GPT 4.0 and it's been revolutionary for certain tasks we do.  Noting is the first stab at this, it is slightly frightening to step up in capability this has enabled in little over 6 months; I couldn't have dreamed we'd be using these tools in the timescales we are.  I guess this comes back to my point on user access.  Nobody really cared when it was AlphaFold working on Protein Structures or playing Starcraft, now that this is enabling everyday people to do everyday tasks with ease, it's making people twitchy.  The cynic in me knows that Google are not the good guys and it's classic that mass use of a tech is somehow more frightening than exclusive tech owned by Google, MS or heaven forbid Facebook.

 

I personally am embracing this tech and think they should crack on.  As Mark says in Peep Show "Judgement Day isn't necessarily going to happen".  The less drudgery my staff do, the more opportunity's can be pursued to the benefit of us all.  I'm not a futurist, but I also don't think we're walking towards The Matrix...yet.

A very thoughtful reply and certainly some points to consider. 

 

My own view is however that humanity is being forsaken by the pace of technological acceleration that is outpacing governance and ethics -  and the philosophical ramifications of this are clear. Of course disinformation/misinformation is already disseminated, but what we do know is that it is vastly enabled by technology and the implications and extent of unfettered AI are terrifying. When someone of the status, insight and standing of Geoffrey Hinton is expressing grave concerns about something he no longer understands - then humankind should take heed. When the most influential and pioneering scientist in the entire history of deep learning explicitly argues that we should curtail this development and not continue to scale up until we understand its reach and how we can control it, the world needs to listen. Of course, this relentless tide is irreversible - both in terms of its commercial potential and more worryingly, for political gain and control. Ironically, this is something that mankind will inevitably end up losing control of. 

Edited by Line-X
  • Like 3
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Line-X said:

A very thoughtful reply and certainly some points to consider. 

 

My own view is however that humanity is being forsaken by the pace of technological acceleration that is outpacing governance and ethics -  and the philosophical ramifications of this are clear. Of course disinformation/misinformation is already disseminated, but what we do know is that it is vastly enabled by technology and the implications and extent of unfettered AI are terrifying. When someone of the status, insight and standing of Geoffrey Hinton is expressing grave concerns about something he no longer understands - then humankind should take heed. When the most influential and pioneering scientist in the entire history of deep learning explicitly argues that we should curtail this development and not continue to scale up until we understand its reach and how we can control it, the world needs to listen. Of course, this relentless tide is irreversible - both in terms of its commercial potential and more worryingly, for political gain and control. Ironically, this is something that mankind will inevitably up losing control of. 

This is on the money too.

 

But not only is the tide irreversible, it's also a necessity for the future IMO, for reasons I've stated above. We simply have to select the risk of disaster in the short term over the certainty of it in the longer term.

Edited by leicsmac
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

https://phys.org/news/2023-05-advanced-aliens-life-earth-scientists.html

 

"Aliens on nearby stars could detect Earth through radio signals leaked from the planet, new research suggests.  Scientists from The University of Manchester and the University of Mauritius used crowd sourced data to simulate radio leakage from mobile towers to determine what alien civilizations might detect from various nearby stars, including Barnard's star, six light years away from Earth."

 

Perhaps at some point, the Fermi Paradox will be put to the test.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, pazzerfox said:

@leicsmac.  What are your views on this?  I understand climate change is a highly complex topic, but I am making an effort to educate myself about it.

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cr36JLitaus/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ%3D%3D

Hmmm...this is something along the lines of other things I've seen before. I won't say that's it's totally dishonest, but it is trying to muddy the waters regarding current temperature trends by adding unfounded assertions onto legit information - either accidentally or deliberately.

 

It's true that there have been natural temperature variations in the past - indeed, millions of years ago the average temperature was perhaps five or six degrees C higher than it is today. It's also true that we can use ice core data to track the temperature changes back to hundreds of thousands of years ago to a very high level. It's also true that there was a "Medieval Warm Period" where the average temperature was also warmer.

 

However, there is a clear correlation between increased human industrial activity, carbon dioxide emissions, and the current average temperature increase. Historical records also show that rises and falls in carbon dioxide and temperature correlate closely, so from that it's really not a massive leap to then establish that the current increasing levels are driving the temperature up, and that it started around the time the Industrial Revolution really started kicking and has only accelerated since really heavily implies human industry is responsible rather than this being just another natural cycle change.

 

Additionally, even it it weren't driven by human activity, by historical standards the current changes would be dramatic on a level only seen in the past when mass extinctions have come about, so even if we weren't responsible for it as a species, we would have to prepare for the consequences of it anyway - or let those consequences cause great harm, as they have done to a lot of species in the past.

 

Feel free to let me know if you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to answer.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
The Bear

The Bear

Posted
Posted

I'll also add to the above response.

 

If you look at his graph in that video it generally takes 500-1000 years for the temperature to change by 1-2°C. That is natural variations due to orbit around the sun, axial tilt of the Earth and other factors on the planet such as magnetic field variations or volcanic activity. 

 

The difference with the current Climate Change as we see it today, is that it has happened in just over 100 years, and there is a clear correlation between carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by humans and the temperature increase. There's zero doubt that this warming has been caused by us, and isn't a natural variation. In fact as far as I remember we should be heading for an ice age if we follow the natural patterns of cooling that happen every 100,000 years or so. 

  • Like 2
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, The Bear said:

I'll also add to the above response.

 

If you look at his graph in that video it generally takes 500-1000 years for the temperature to change by 1-2°C. That is natural variations due to orbit around the sun, axial tilt of the Earth and other factors on the planet such as magnetic field variations or volcanic activity. 

 

The difference with the current Climate Change as we see it today, is that it has happened in just over 100 years, and there is a clear correlation between carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by humans and the temperature increase. There's zero doubt that this warming has been caused by us, and isn't a natural variation. In fact as far as I remember we should be heading for an ice age if we follow the natural patterns of cooling that happen every 100,000 years or so. 

Yeah, the current interglacial period shouldn't last too much longer if human activity wasn't a factor, but seeing as it is all bets are off.

 

And to repeat, the temperature variation relative to time happening right now (as it how fast it's changing) has only happened in the past when there have been cataclysmic mass extinction events. We might want to keep that in mind.

pazzerfox

pazzerfox

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Hmmm...this is something along the lines of other things I've seen before. I won't say that's it's totally dishonest, but it is trying to muddy the waters regarding current temperature trends by adding unfounded assertions onto legit information - either accidentally or deliberately.

 

It's true that there have been natural temperature variations in the past - indeed, millions of years ago the average temperature was perhaps five or six degrees C higher than it is today. It's also true that we can use ice core data to track the temperature changes back to hundreds of thousands of years ago to a very high level. It's also true that there was a "Medieval Warm Period" where the average temperature was also warmer.

 

However, there is a clear correlation between increased human industrial activity, carbon dioxide emissions, and the current average temperature increase. Historical records also show that rises and falls in carbon dioxide and temperature correlate closely, so from that it's really not a massive leap to then establish that the current increasing levels are driving the temperature up, and that it started around the time the Industrial Revolution really started kicking and has only accelerated since really heavily implies human industry is responsible rather than this being just another natural cycle change.

 

Additionally, even it it weren't driven by human activity, by historical standards the current changes would be dramatic on a level only seen in the past when mass extinctions have come about, so even if we weren't responsible for it as a species, we would have to prepare for the consequences of it anyway - or let those consequences cause great harm, as they have done to a lot of species in the past.

 

Feel free to let me know if you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to answer.

Thank you very much for your response.  I have a few questions.

 

1.  How do you distinguish between assertions that are accidentally or deliberately misleading?  This subject is akin to the information surrounding COVID-19, where some data is outright misinformation. However, as a non-expert, it can be challenging to discern between fact and fiction.

 

2.  What do you think would need to happen for us to be able to definitively say that human activity is responsible for the current increase in temperature (or is the evidence irrefutable)? 

 

3.  In your opinion (as a scientist), what steps should individuals and governments take to prepare for the consequences of climate change, regardless of whether it is caused by human activity or a natural cycle?

 

Thanks in advance.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, pazzerfox said:

Thank you very much for your response.  I have a few questions.

 

1.  How do you distinguish between assertions that are accidentally or deliberately misleading?  This subject is akin to the information surrounding COVID-19, where some data is outright misinformation. However, as a non-expert, it can be challenging to discern between fact and fiction.

 

2.  What do you think would need to happen for us to be able to definitively say that human activity is responsible for the current increase in temperature (or is the evidence irrefutable)? 

 

3.  In your opinion (as a scientist), what steps should individuals and governments take to prepare for the consequences of climate change, regardless of whether it is caused by human activity or a natural cycle?

 

Thanks in advance.

These are good questions, thanks for asking them!

 

To answer...

"

1. It's bloody difficult. Not every person has the time (or indeed the inclination) to parse their sources to make sure they're not bogus, so while I would say "if it links to a peer-reviewed paper that is the original study, then it's alright", I can understand that some folks simply don't have the time to check that for each piece they read.

 

As such, I would recommend the website phys.com, as they link back to original journal articles in practically every news piece they write. Beyond that, I would follow a rule of thumb: if it's stating a scientific assertion as fact without linking to other places in order to do so, there's at least a possibility it's being misleading, so tread carefully.

 

2. I think it's reasonably definitive already, and that is shared by scientific consensus at this time. There's several different factors that all come together which make it practically impossible for it to just be coincidence.

 

3. Firstly, try to limit the rise in temperature. I've stated measures that will help with that while still maintaining human quality of life on here before. Secondly, even with those measures there's likely going to be an overall rise of not less than 2 degrees C, which will result in much higher incidences of drought, flooding (paradoxical, I know) and associated famine and lack of water events. Thus, better flood defences, irrigation programs, and weatherproof buildings and more resilient crops are all going to be needed, as well as the logistics to deliver all of it to where it is needed. Individuals can help by lobbying their local and national officials and at the ballot box, as well as buying from and supporting companies that are helping with the above, but this is mostly going to be a job that is required at the level of government and big business.

  • Like 2
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-65518528

 

"Vietnam has recorded its highest ever temperature, just over 44C (111F) - with experts predicting it would soon be surpassed because of climate change. 

 

The record was set in the northern province of Thanh Hoa, where officials warned people to stay indoors during the hottest times of the day. 

 

Other countries in the region have also been experiencing extremely hot weather."

 

Awful lot of those records being broken right now, isn't there? Not the best sign of times to come.

  • Sad 2
pazzerfox

pazzerfox

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, leicsmac said:

These are good questions, thanks for asking them!

 

To answer...

"

1. It's bloody difficult. Not every person has the time (or indeed the inclination) to parse their sources to make sure they're not bogus, so while I would say "if it links to a peer-reviewed paper that is the original study, then it's alright", I can understand that some folks simply don't have the time to check that for each piece they read.

 

As such, I would recommend the website phys.com, as they link back to original journal articles in practically every news piece they write. Beyond that, I would follow a rule of thumb: if it's stating a scientific assertion as fact without linking to other places in order to do so, there's at least a possibility it's being misleading, so tread carefully.

 

2. I think it's reasonably definitive already, and that is shared by scientific consensus at this time. There's several different factors that all come together which make it practically impossible for it to just be coincidence.

 

3. Firstly, try to limit the rise in temperature. I've stated measures that will help with that while still maintaining human quality of life on here before. Secondly, even with those measures there's likely going to be an overall rise of not less than 2 degrees C, which will result in much higher incidences of drought, flooding (paradoxical, I know) and associated famine and lack of water events. Thus, better flood defences, irrigation programs, and weatherproof buildings and more resilient crops are all going to be needed, as well as the logistics to deliver all of it to where it is needed. Individuals can help by lobbying their local and national officials and at the ballot box, as well as buying from and supporting companies that are helping with the above, but this is mostly going to be a job that is required at the level of government and big business.

Thanks for this.  Just a couple of questions on the back of your thorough answers.

 

Are you able to offer any sources that back up assertions with peer reviewed studies please?


How can individuals without a scientific background or training contribute to efforts to limit the rise in temperature and mitigate the effects of climate change?


Are there any potential drawbacks or challenges associated with implementing measures such as better flood defenses, irrigation programs, and weatherproof buildings? 

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, pazzerfox said:

Thanks for this.  Just a couple of questions on the back of your thorough answers.

 

Are you able to offer any sources that back up assertions with peer reviewed studies please?


How can individuals without a scientific background or training contribute to efforts to limit the rise in temperature and mitigate the effects of climate change?


Are there any potential drawbacks or challenges associated with implementing measures such as better flood defenses, irrigation programs, and weatherproof buildings? 

No problem!

 

1. For the correlation between temperature and CO2 levels, Stips et al is a good source that lays it out in detail. For the scientific consensus, Lynas et al demonstrates that it is almost universal. If there's papers proving other assertions you need, I'd be happy to supply them. The major organisations like NASA and the NOAA have their own webpages on the topic too, but these are certifiable and peer-reviewed.

 

2. The best thing, as I said above, is a little bit of political activity. Lobby your MP, let them know that you'd be happy with them working to have renewable and also Gen III/IV fission generation in your area in order to break reliance on coal, oil and gas ASAP, as well as that MP raising the question in Parliament consistently so that the UK might pressure other countries to either do the same or get the major players to help them do so - this is a world issue after all, and every little bit helps. Beyond that, talk to other people and try to get them to help too, as I am doing - the more people on message, the more likely the powers that be may listen.

 

3. In terms of natural or other consequence, no. The only real drawback will be the cost - it will be more expensive than sitting on our hands and doing nothing, but then of course the cost of doing nothing will, in the longer term, be much higher anyway. The challenge will be the logistical effort needed to get all these things sorted where they need to be in the time they need to be there.

Edited by leicsmac
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

On a slightly more laconic note, who was the first human to noticeably be responsible for a change in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide around the world?

 

Genghis Khan.

SpacedX

SpacedX

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65529437

 

"The province of Alberta has requested military assistance from Canada's federal government as it battles "unprecedented" wildfires."

 

As well as getting the help they need, perhaps the Albertans might consider now beginning to move away from fueling the circumstances where these "unprecedented" wildfires become...well,  unprecedented.

 

Exactly what I was thinking. The 'unprecedented' devastation caused by the Oil Sands/Fort McMurray wildfires was as recent as 2016. I know a guy there who tragically lost his apartment. Ironically, he's a climate change denier as are many in such an oil rich state economy. It was considered one of the most devastating natural disasters in Canadian History (although the first nations of what is now British Columbia would point to the 1700 Cascadia earthquake and tsunami). Nonetheless, this was seen as a once in a millennium event...and here we are seven years later.  

Edited by Line-X
pazzerfox

pazzerfox

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, leicsmac said:

No problem!

 

1. For the correlation between temperature and CO2 levels, Stips et al is a good source that lays it out in detail. For the scientific consensus, Lynas et al demonstrates that it is almost universal. If there's papers proving other assertions you need, I'd be happy to supply them. The major organisations like NASA and the NOAA have their own webpages on the topic too, but these are certifiable and peer-reviewed.

 

2. The best thing, as I said above, is a little bit of political activity. Lobby your MP, let them know that you'd be happy with them working to have renewable and also Gen III/IV fission generation in your area in order to break reliance on coal, oil and gas ASAP, as well as that MP raising the question in Parliament consistently so that the UK might pressure other countries to either do the same or get the major players to help them do so - this is a world issue after all, and every little bit helps. Beyond that, talk to other people and try to get them to help too, as I am doing - the more people on message, the more likely the powers that be may listen.

 

3. In terms of natural or other consequence, no. The only real drawback will be the cost - it will be more expensive than sitting on our hands and doing nothing, but then of course the cost of doing nothing will, in the longer term, be much higher anyway. The challenge will be the logistical effort needed to get all these things sorted where they need to be in the time they need to be there.

Thank you very much.  Most helpful.

  • Like 1
davieG

davieG

Posted
  • Author
Posted

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65533993

Longer lorries to be allowed on Britain's roads

Lorries on the M1
IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES
By Tom Espiner
Business reporter, BBC News
The government has approved the use of longer lorries on British roads, saying it will make businesses more efficient and cut emissions.

The industry welcome the move, saying it would mean more goods could be transported by fewer vehicles.

One campaign group warned the larger tail swing, meaning their rear end covers a bigger area when turning could put pedestrians and cyclists at risk.

Ministers said the lorries, which have been trialled since 2011, are safe.

There are already around 3,000 such lorries in use. They are 18.55m long - which is about 2.05m longer than the standard size.

However, from 31 May any business in England, Scotland and Wales will be permitted to use them.

The Department for Transport (DfT) said the vehicles would help businesses be more productive. For example, bakery chain Greggs - which has used the vehicles since 2013 - says it can carry 15% more goods than usual in a longer trailer.

The move is set to result in £1.4bn of economic benefits and take one standard-size trailer off the road for every 12 trips, the government said.

It estimates the vehicles will save 70,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere over 11 years.

The DfT also said the vehicles had been involved in "around 61% fewer personal injury collisions than conventional lorries".

 

 

'Trains more efficient'
However, the Campaign for Better Transport said the change was was a "deeply retrograde step" which will "do nothing to tackle carbon emissions or air pollution".

Spokesman Norman Baker added that the bigger "tail swing" of the lorries presented a "danger to other road users and pedestrians".

He added: "Rather than longer lorries, the government should be working to ensure more freight is moved by rail - an efficient, safe and clean alternative with just one freight train capable of removing up to 129 lorries from our roads."

A government-commissioned report published in July 2021 revealed that 58 people were injured in incidents involving longer lorries between 2012 and 2020.

Under the new rules, operators will be legally required to carry out risk assessments and ensure they take appropriate routes.

The longer lorries will still have the same 44-tonne weight limit as those using standard trailers.

However, a spokesman for the Road Haulage Association urged the government to go further by increasing the permitted weight to 48 tonnes.

"This will be increasingly important when we roll out zero-emission trucks to compensate for the increased weight from batteries," he said.

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...