ndrh

That is bad enough to prioritize avoiding at all costs (mainly costs to the upper crust of the economy, the part most resistant to meaningful change).

I, for one, don't believe civilization could handle perpetual catastrophe, the loss of billions of people while retaining a grow-or-die economic model, our largest cities needing to "move" inland/uphill, and migrating populations escaping ininhabitable areas, etc. etc., without altogether collapsing.

Look how fragile it is - blocking the Strait of Hormuz alone caused economic near-calamity in some markets. It's like we are all on a fast-moving treadmill, and once tripped, there's no getting back up. This isn't the world of 1933.

For another 50 years after we do stabilize them, yes.

The contrarian throwaway said: "A significant, geologically fast rise in global temperatures would kill millions/billions of people, inundate coastal areas, result in major migrations and resource wars, etc."

-- this sounds close enough to what I said, simply "We all die." I didn't say the oceans would evaporate. But with that amount of damage, global civilization and culture would probably not survive. Going carbon-neutral is not a "meh, let's do it later, or not" type of thing.

Although there is not necessarily a cognate from the past to accurately describe what AI becomes in the future, I wonder if electric companies were once thought to have "better" electricity than others, like how AI companies have proprietary algorithms which are all basically very similar.

We may arrive at a point where standardized AI is a commodity, and since it was developed using reams of public data, proprietary rights become severely limited. (Personally, this is beyond my current level of optimism in law, ethics and humanity.)

Kind of terrifying that "we may" turn the tide on CO2 is an acceptable level of optimism.

If we don't, we all die. it isn't something to leave up to mindless market mechanics.