#chip ai | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mostlysignssomeportents · 4 months

Text

Real innovation vs Silicon Valley nonsense

This is the LAST DAY to get my bestselling solarpunk utopian novel THE LOST CAUSE (2023) as a $2.99, DRM-free ebook!

If there was any area where we needed a lot of "innovation," it's in climate tech. We've already blown through numerous points-of-no-return for a habitable Earth, and the pace is accelerating.

Silicon Valley claims to be the epicenter of American innovation, but what passes for innovation in Silicon Valley is some combination of nonsense, climate-wrecking tech, and climate-wrecking nonsense tech. Forget Jeff Hammerbacher's lament about "the best minds of my generation thinking about how to make people click ads." Today's best-paid, best-trained technologists are enlisted to making boobytrapped IoT gadgets:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/24/record-scratch/#autoenshittification

Planet-destroying cryptocurrency scams:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/15/your-new-first-name/#that-dagger-tho

NFT frauds:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/06/crypto-copyright-%f0%9f%a4%a1%f0%9f%92%a9/

Or planet-destroying AI frauds:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/29/pay-no-attention/#to-the-little-man-behind-the-curtain

If that was the best "innovation" the human race had to offer, we'd be fucking doomed.

But – as Ryan Cooper writes for The American Prospect – there's a far more dynamic, consequential, useful and exciting innovation revolution underway, thanks to muscular public spending on climate tech:

https://prospect.org/environment/2024-05-30-green-energy-revolution-real-innovation/

The green energy revolution – funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS Act and the Science Act – is accomplishing amazing feats, which are barely registering amid the clamor of AI nonsense and other hype. I did an interview a while ago about my climate novel The Lost Cause and the interviewer wanted to know what role AI would play in resolving the climate emergency. I was momentarily speechless, then I said, "Well, I guess maybe all the energy used to train and operate models could make it much worse? What role do you think it could play?" The interviewer had no answer.

Here's brief tour of the revolution:

2023 saw 32GW of new solar energy come online in the USA (up 50% from 2022);

Wind increased from 118GW to 141GW;

Grid-scale batteries doubled in 2023 and will double again in 2024;

EV sales increased from 20,000 to 90,000/month.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/blog/2023/12/19/building-a-thriving-clean-energy-economy-in-2023-and-beyond/

The cost of clean energy is plummeting, and that's triggering other areas of innovation, like using "hot rocks" to replace fossil fuel heat (25% of overall US energy consumption):

https://rondo.com/products

Increasing our access to cheap, clean energy will require a lot of materials, and material production is very carbon intensive. Luckily, the existing supply of cheap, clean energy is fueling "green steel" production experiments:

https://www.wdam.com/2024/03/25/americas-1st-green-steel-plant-coming-perry-county-1b-federal-investment/

Cheap, clean energy also makes it possible to recover valuable minerals from aluminum production tailings, a process that doubles as site-remediation:

https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/toxic-red-mud-co2-free-iron

And while all this electrification is going to require grid upgrades, there's lots we can do with our existing grid, like power-line automation that increases capacity by 40%:

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/13/1187620367/power-grid-enhancing-technologies-climate-change

It's also going to require a lot of storage, which is why it's so exciting that we're figuring out how to turn decommissioned mines into giant batteries. During the day, excess renewable energy is channeled into raising rock-laden platforms to the top of the mine-shafts, and at night, these unspool, releasing energy that's fed into the high-availability power-lines that are already present at every mine-site:

https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/02/06/this-disused-mine-in-finland-is-being-turned-into-a-gravity-battery-to-store-renewable-ene

Why are we paying so much attention to Silicon Valley pump-and-dumps and ignoring all this incredible, potentially planet-saving, real innovation? Cooper cites a plausible explanation from the Apperceptive newsletter:

https://buttondown.email/apperceptive/archive/destructive-investing-and-the-siren-song-of/

Silicon Valley is the land of low-capital, low-labor growth. Software development requires fewer people than infrastructure and hard goods manufacturing, both to get started and to run as an ongoing operation. Silicon Valley is the place where you get rich without creating jobs. It's run by investors who hate the idea of paying people. That's why AI is so exciting for Silicon Valley types: it lets them fantasize about making humans obsolete. A company without employees is a company without labor issues, without messy co-determination fights, without any moral consideration for others. It's the natural progression for an industry that started by misclassifying the workers in its buildings as "contractors," and then graduated to pretending that millions of workers were actually "independent small businesses."

It's also the natural next step for an industry that hates workers so much that it will pretend that their work is being done by robots, and then outsource the labor itself to distant Indian call-centers (no wonder Indian techies joke that "AI" stands for "absent Indians"):

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/17/fake-it-until-you-dont-make-it/#twenty-one-seconds

Contrast this with climate tech: this is a profoundly physical kind of technology. It is labor intensive. It is skilled. The workers who perform it have power, both because they are so far from their employers' direct oversight and because these fed-funded sectors are more likely to be unionized than Silicon Valley shops. Moreover, climate tech is capital intensive. All of those workers are out there moving stuff around: solar panels, wires, batteries.

Climate tech is infrastructural. As Deb Chachra writes in her must-read 2023 book How Infrastructure Works, infrastructure is a gift we give to our descendants. Infrastructure projects rarely pay for themselves during the lives of the people who decide to build them:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/17/care-work/#charismatic-megaprojects

Climate tech also produces gigantic, diffused, uncapturable benefits. The "social cost of carbon" is a measure that seeks to capture how much we all pay as polluters despoil our shared world. It includes the direct health impacts of burning fossil fuels, and the indirect costs of wildfires and extreme weather events. The "social savings" of climate tech are massive:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/05/climate-and-health-benefits-of-wind-and-solar-dwarf-all-subsidies/

For every MWh of renewable power produced, we save $100 in social carbon costs. That's $100 worth of people not sickening and dying from pollution, $100 worth of homes and habitats not burning down or disappearing under floodwaters. All told, US renewables have delivered $250,000,000,000 (one quarter of one trillion dollars) in social carbon savings over the past four years:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/05/climate-and-health-benefits-of-wind-and-solar-dwarf-all-subsidies/

In other words, climate tech is unselfish tech. It's a gift to the future and to the broad public. It shares its spoils with workers. It requires public action. By contrast, Silicon Valley is greedy tech that is relentlessly focused on the shortest-term returns that can be extracted with the least share going to labor. It also requires massive public investment, but it also totally committed to giving as little back to the public as is possible.

No wonder America's richest and most powerful people are lining up to endorse and fund Trump:

https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-05-30-democracy-deshmocracy-mega-financiers-flocking-to-trump/

Silicon Valley epitomizes Stafford Beer's motto that "the purpose of a system is what it does." If Silicon Valley produces nothing but planet-wrecking nonsense, grifty scams, and planet-wrecking, nonsensical scams, then these are all features of the tech sector, not bugs.

As Anil Dash writes:

Driving change requires us to make the machine want something else. If the purpose of a system is what it does, and we don’t like what it does, then we have to change the system.

https://www.anildash.com/2024/05/29/systems-the-purpose-of-a-system/

To give climate tech the attention, excitement, and political will it deserves, we need to recalibrate our understanding of the world. We need to have object permanence. We need to remember just how few people were actually using cryptocurrency during the bubble and apply that understanding to AI hype. Only 2% of Britons surveyed in a recent study use AI tools:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c511x4g7x7jo

If we want our tech companies to do good, we have to understand that their ground state is to create planet-wrecking nonsense, grifty scams, and planet-wrecking, nonsensical scams. We need to make these companies small enough to fail, small enough to jail, and small enough to care:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/04/teach-me-how-to-shruggie/#kagi

We need to hold companies responsible, and we need to change the microeconomics of the board room, to make it easier for tech workers who want to do good to shout down the scammers, nonsense-peddlers and grifters:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/28/microincentives-and-enshittification/

Yesterday, a federal judge ruled that the FTC could hold Amazon executives personally liable for the decision to trick people into signing up for Prime, and for making the unsubscribe-from-Prime process into a Kafka-as-a-service nightmare:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/05/amazon-execs-may-be-personally-liable-for-tricking-users-into-prime-sign-ups/

Imagine how powerful a precedent this could set. The Amazon employees who vociferously objected to their bosses' decision to make Prime as confusing as possible could have raised the objection that doing this could end up personally costing those bosses millions of dollars in fines:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/03/big-tech-cant-stop-telling-on-itself/

We need to make climate tech, not Big Tech, the center of our scrutiny and will. The climate emergency is so terrifying as to be nearly unponderable. Science fiction writers are increasingly being called upon to try to frame this incomprehensible risk in human terms. SF writer (and biologist) Peter Watts's conversation with evolutionary biologist Dan Brooks is an eye-opener:

https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-collapse-is-coming-will-humanity-adapt/

They draw a distinction between "sustainability" meaning "what kind of technological fixes can we come up with that will allow us to continue to do business as usual without paying a penalty for it?" and sustainability meaning, "what changes in behavior will allow us to save ourselves with the technology that is possible?"

Writing about the Watts/Brooks dialog for Naked Capitalism, Yves Smith invokes William Gibson's The Peripheral:

With everything stumbling deeper into a ditch of shit, history itself become a slaughterhouse, science had started popping. Not all at once, no one big heroic thing, but there were cleaner, cheaper energy sources, more effective ways to get carbon out of the air, new drugs that did what antibiotics had done before…. Ways to print food that required much less in the way of actual food to begin with. So everything, however deeply fucked in general, was lit increasingly by the new, by things that made people blink and sit up, but then the rest of it would just go on, deeper into the ditch. A progress accompanied by constant violence, he said, by sufferings unimaginable.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/05/preparing-for-collapse-why-the-focus-on-climate-energy-sustainability-is-destructive.html

Gibson doesn't think this is likely, mind, and even if it's attainable, it will come amidst "unimaginable suffering."

But the universe of possible technologies is quite large. As Chachra points out in How Infrastructure Works, we could give every person on Earth a Canadian's energy budget (like an American's, but colder), by capturing a mere 0.4% of the solar radiation that reaches the Earth's surface every day. Doing this will require heroic amounts of material and labor, especially if we're going to do it without destroying the planet through material extraction and manufacturing.

These are the questions that we should be concerning ourselves with: what behavioral changes will allow us to realize cheap, abundant, green energy? What "innovations" will our society need to focus on the things we need, rather than the scams and nonsense that creates Silicon Valley fortunes?

How can we use planning, and solidarity, and codetermination to usher in the kind of tech that makes it possible for us to get through the climate bottleneck with as little death and destruction as possible? How can we use enforcement, discernment, and labor rights to thwart the enshittificatory impulses of Silicon Valley's biggest assholes?

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/30/posiwid/#social-cost-of-carbon

155 notes · View notes

derpyfangirl · 2 years

Text

Some thoughts and headcanons born from @k-chips amazing art of AI!Clavell and a more cohesive gathering of my little idea dump there. This gonna be a long one, so strap in.

To start, the meat of my idea from that post (bold is me just adding context now)

It was their (Sada/Turo) invention- the time machine- that got the original Clavell killed. Like they brought our Raidon forward, but during their time back on the surface they realize how much of Arven's life they're missing out on, and Clavell is like "You spend time with the kid, I'll keep researching, when Arven is around 16-17 we can swap spots" but shit went sideways when, while down there with Raidon, the second, feral Raidon is summoned and the game follows the tragedy we all discover.

So, in this timeline, Sada/Turo aren't as obsessed with their research. When they bring Koraidon/Miraidon (just for the sake of convenience, we will be using Pokemon Scarlet as a base as that's the version I play going forward, but remember this also applies to Violet) to the surface, Arven is around maybe 8 or 9 and Koraidon is around the same age based on journal entries mentioning how she "expected one gift of life, and now she has two" after mentioning bringing Kor foward in time, is when Sada realizes she's missing out on so much of her son's life, and that creating Paradise is worthless if it means destroying what remains of her little family.

Enter Clavell: he's still somewhat involved with her research in Area Zero and suggests she stay and raise Arven and he'll work on her research with the AI she began developing, and when Arven is old enough they can swap spots and she can return to Area Zero. She agrees, and after the event causing Kor to be sent back to the Crater, Sada and Clavell keep in constant contact with her and Arven occasionally making trips down to visit.

4 years before the game, the 2nd Koraidon (I'll refer to it either as feral Kor or Rex (in reference to its dex entry calling him the Winged King)) is brought to our time. Rex attacks Kor, and Clavell follows the battle to Research Station 4, the AI giving him updates on the battle. He arrives just in time to see Kor backed into a corner with Rex ready to give the killing blow. Clavell shields Kor, having practically raised it, and is killed by the feral Koraidon.

The AI panics, Kor is injured and flees, and suddenly Clavell stops calling and refuses any suggestions to come visit from Sada. He only communicates via email for a year, and when he finally video calls its to say that if he needs anything from her or if there are any developments in the project, he will reach out to her and to stop disturbing him.

Sada of course is upset by this. Angry that he basically told her to fuck off on what is technically both her and Clavell's research (bc she's probably been working on her research while still raising and spending time with her son), and worried as her friend and mentor has never been like this.

Not sure how Clavell would become Academy Director in this timeline unless Team Star's actions at the school take place a bit before Clavell dies, and just before he's killed Clavell had accepted becoming director, but requested time to finish his work and that Sada be his temp replacement (or something, still working the kinks out on this one)

Anyways, a year before the game Arven- who misses Clavell and is both mad at him for upsetting his mom and worried for his safety- enters the Crater and during this, Mabosstiff is attacked by something (in Scarlet, I personally think it was either a Slitherwing or a Roaring Moon, but the later means that they were lucky to even escape alive, as Roaring Moon doesn't seem to be one to leave its prey alive.).

Game occurs, Sada being acting Director while juggling investigating Team Star, her research, raising her son and trying to help Mabosstiff, and looking into what could have happened to Clavell, who suddenly hasn't been responding to anything despite how he should have returned to take over as Director. She's surprised to see Kor, but AIClavell calls and says that Kor must have missed Sada and Arven and gives ownership of Kor to the player. Sada figures it would be good for the lizard to get experience via your Treasure Hunt and requests you take care of it as it's like her second child.

Game proceeds as normal till Area Zero. Sada joins the gang in the Great Crater partially because she knows how dangerous it can be and she can't just allow 4 teens to stroll in there unsupervised (why Clavell would even request a child enter the Crater is something that bothers her), and partially to see what's going on down there. She's basically bouncing up and down seeing her paradise having been created, but recognizes that should the Paradox mons escape, it would destroy Paldea's ecosystems. When you go to talk with AIClavell at the lab, she stays outside at first with Arven to hold off the Paradox mons trying to get in.

When she finally sees AI Clavell and discovers the OG Clavell is dead, she is in a state of shock. It was her invention, her dream that resulted in her best friend and mentor's death, and that this entire time she hadn't even been communicating with him, but the AI she created to help Clavell.

AI Clavell needs someone to stop the machine as he knows his human self would want the same, but the Paradise Protection Protocol kicks in, much to Sada- who had it as a failsafe should the time machine detect that a Pokémon was attacking it, not if someone was simply powering it down- and AI Clavell- who didn't even know it existed- horror.

I might add more to this, but yeah. TLDR, Clavell stays in Area Zero so Sada can raise Arven, Clavell is killed protecting Kor, Sada is Director instead, AI Clavell battles you.

#pokemon sv #pokemon clavell #director clavell #pokemon scarlet/violet #pokemon sada #pokemon scarlet #professor sada #professor turo #arven pokemon #ai!clavell au #my headcanons #long post #k-chips' art is amazing go check it out #this au has major angst potential #and i LIVE for that shit #also somewhat gives Arven a happier ending as his parents aren't shitty #give my boy some happiness dammit #sada and turo are fun to explore #this is from Scarlet's perspective but can also apply to turo

326 notes · View notes