Predictable issue if you knew the fundamental technology that goes into these models. Hell it should have been obvious it was headed this way to the layperson once they saw the videos and heard the audio.

We're less sensitive to patterns in massive data, the point at which we cant tell fact from ai fiction from the content is before these machines can't tell. Good luck with the FB aunt's.

GANs final goal is to develop content that is indistinguishable... Are we surprised?

Edit since the person below me made a great point. GANs may be limited but there's nothing that says you can't setup a generator and detector llm with the distinct intent to make detectors and generators for the sole purpose of improving the generator.

Fuck no society (or at least my country) does owe me, I pay taxes. Quite a bit due to where I live actually, I'm not upset about it but I get fuck all for it. And I'm just a working class person, I don't have any connections ... Imagine all the people just avoiding taxes.

Tax me more, honestly just give me working infrastructure, healthcare and other things that a functioning country should have. I'm so sick of footing the bill for all these fucking bailouts and subsidization of private interests, the do nothings in Congress are the real freeloaders. And yet they'll bitch at you when you suggest we allocate some of the funds from the military into making sure our 'strategic highway' systems bridges dont just fall over.

I don't mind paying but the service sucks 😭

My unpopular opinion is that if you evade all of your tax responsibility as a company you should have no legal protections in said country but they'd never bite.

Amazon's semis and delivery trucks provide how much wear and tear on the highway grid but how much do we get in taxes for allowing that? $0 (maybe not exactly but you get the gist).I mean fuck cars but most Americans want working roads too.

And no it's not smart to avoid taxes, that's bad business that hurts the entire system in the long run.

If only these poor oil producers had some sort of half century or more lead to reap the benefits of their export advantage and diversify their interests. Won't someone think of how unfair it is to ask them to change? /s

12 yr club here 👍

From an industry standpoint everything the article says at the end as a critique is correct. We should be playing moneyball, those fans that draw in the particles would be an additional toll on the power grid.

Instead spend the money on removing the emission sources and modernizing our grid/reducing fuel emissions. After weve exhausted low hanging fruit there we'll have to throw money at offset tech.

I suppose we'll have to get the tech made eventually but there's just so much to be reworked on our grids as is.

Fantastically put!

Amen, only angle I can see someone disagreeing with is trees becoming a potential bank of carbon to be fed back into the atmosphere via fuel for wildfires.

I so wish there were better ways to control forest fires.

I feel like you think this until someone who 'knows someone' or otherwise benefits from nepotism gets to walk all over you and the facade of a system breaks down.

The fact alone that the courts in the us were packed with political interests during 45 already means the system is broken as your case could be "made an example of" at any time at any donors behest. That's the fundamental form of redress in a civilized society and we can't even guarantee that anymore.

"Nuclear lover" is a bit harsh. Someone mentioned batteries but another area is in actually buying emissions free energy and proving it for audits or reporting.

An angle that needs to be considered is that any upgrades that need to happen to a power grid in order to connect (in the US) need to be paid for by the party adding to the grid. The US distribution grid is ancient and this actually incentivizes them to do nothing.

One of the major negatives in solar and wind power is the instability of it. I think it's overblown but is a genuine issue. Factor in the massive, massive bill the newer renewable power generator pays and it makes sense to use something more stable to recoup investment. Nuclear is then safer, capital does what it does.

There's also the negative that depending on the contracting for the batteries, the lessOR of the batteries might be able to "claim" the energy credits towards their zero energy claims. This is also how those other solar companies profit off installing them on your house, they take the "green energy credits" and can sell them.

Nuclear doesn't usually have these types of stipulations.

Fwiw most people in the corporate sustainability push (who actually give a damn that is) think net zero is impossible without a significant nuclear push.

We are not beyond the emissions reduction stage and will not be until the grid is 100% renewable or other emissions free energy powered.

Switching to clean energy is emissions reduction. Imo should be our #1 priority because we're not reducing power demand without massive societal change.

I have expertise here and in my opinion I think this is fantastic. For those unaware, the scope 3 mentioned in the article is everything (all emissions from) upstream and downstream of your supply chain. If you make automotive engines that's everything from pulling and refining steel to shipping it to you AND all of the dealerships carbon AND customers.

The reason imo this matters is that this is fucking hard. It's hard because you need life cycle analysis and some of the tech is so advanced who knows when we'll have the right emissions factors for them. Heck even the epa is 2 yrs behind on the egrid publications.

The other reason this is hard is that if your steel supplier doesn't want to comply then, well, f you. But if you can make everyone report their scope 3s it will get everyone up to speed and cut out all the weird contract footsie with requesting your vendor comply and do green shit.

Np I think the way the scopes are outlined is well meaning but man some of the terms and the balkanization of the industry's terms has made things confusing.

Imo it's the biggest reason we didn't get more public pressure on this but science is hard so /shrug

I don't disagree with anything you said but wanted to just weigh in on the more degrees of freedom.

One major thing to consider is that unless we have 24/7 sensor recording with AI out in the real world and a continuous monitoring of sensor/equipment health, we're not going to have the "real" data that the AI triggered on.

Version and model updates will also likely continue to cause drift unless managed through some sort of central distribution service.

Any large Corp will have this organization and review or are in the process of figuring it out. Small NFT/Crypto bros that jump to AI will not.

IMO the space will either head towards larger AI ensembles that tries to understand where an exact rubric is applied vs more AGI human reasoning. Or we'll have to rethink the nuances of our train test and how humans use language to interact with others vs understand the world (we all speak the same language as someone else but there's still a ton of inefficiency)

I really hope this triggers the ruling class to care but I get the feeling it'll be thrown on the pile of other "investments that make money" along with healthcare, working public transit, proper electrical grid, and free college. 🙃

I work directly on scope 1+2 reporting. Good luck understanding all the nuance in your ESG role. I'm loving being in sustainability too.

This is a bit dated but shows that 41% of road upkeep on average is paid for by gas taxes (and other fees). So yes while they may have some tax paid on fuel (that they have likely negotiated down via bulk purchase), they're not even paying for half on average.

Edit - just to include given we've seen landmark inflation over the last few years it's likely the share of taxes on upkeep has gone down.

I think what bothers me most is the 2060 'comittment' under their own 'methods'. Smells like abusing shady EAC/RECs or the carbon sequestration tech we keep hearing is bunk.

Theoretically if the scope 3 legislation across the world had teeth we'd see companies doing business with China having much higher than average emissions factors in their reports. Hopefully we'd see the market correct but not likely when oceans are hitting 101 and yet 'climate talks are always challenging' still.

The only thing I hope is that the insurance companies bring a reality check sooner rather than later.

Hello, companies have not be net zero for years? In fact the US is anticipating increased reporting reqs on green house gas emissions. What you might be referring to is the fact that some companies went the "easy route" and bought a bunch of these sketchy recs and are now being told by certain committees they cannot claim carbon neutral. I want to say it was CDP who was having these discussions?

The biggest issue I think we see from a clarity standpoint is that there is currently balkanization over industry terms. CDP may say that carbon neutral claims have to be proceeded by operations decarbonization and then the remainder can be bought down but the layperson doesn't see that.

Layer in that countries have to go by each jurisdiction on what they report in (Businesses in the EU have one emissions factor set, another in the UK has another, Asia a third etc) And you get some confusing estimates.

I promise you though, most companies may have committed to Net0 but a very large portion ended up buying RECs to offset. The arguments that are happening now are good because that's the easy way and once everyone is doing it that doesn't work.

Back to carbon sequestration, we are repeatedly seeing that new hype developments in this space are bunk or generate more carbon then they develop OR are too hard to track and prove (can't think of examples for that one, forest?).

Some of the only ways companies are decarbonizing right now are greening of the grid and purchases of emissions free energy. Unless we spend more time adding to the grid with electricity that will not generate emissions, we will never be able to hit net zero. (Without a significant cultural change in consumption).

Pragmatically I think we have a lot to be gained on focusing on logistic improvements via a cost of carbon built in (to later be force spent on recs or sequestration tech/R&D). Consider that some companies buy an entire fleet of gas and then ship that overseas for their fleet simply because it makes their audit and accounting easier. That is such a net deficit in energy we're producing with that fuel it's an oxymoron. (I mean this as smaller distro networks will always be less efficient)

Sorry I didn't mean to wall of text you but I find this stuff fascinating.

Loved my dynavap, the only thing that took it out of my rotation was the upgraded danivap fusion. It just feels so much less conspicuous with the wood steam for some reason.

Agreed! I was just mentioning the only negative angle I could see, still a net positive!