Perhaps it's especially galling to me because I am an American and I have seen our President roll back mitigations and even pay penalties to stop windmills from going in.

In this environment, the AI delta is unsurprising.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/unep-climate-paris-global-warming-9.7329305

But “stop doing AI” is a pipe dream. It’s like telling Ford to “stop doing cars” in 1930.

AI, like cars, has benefits as well as major environmental drawbacks. A realistic goal is to get AI to a point where it is heavily regulated and doesn’t take massive data centers and enormous resources to be useful, and I think that’s possible in a very short time if we elect the right people.

Very tedious liars and utter and total scam artists.

I say we need to tax the crap out of them.

Starting with eliminating coal plants.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kGluhVXnd6d-7Jt_Iw_o0RD6kd7DJIpWRLOcoabHV3w/edit?gid=182657456#gid=182657456

That's not rational, that's genocidal thinking, evil even. It's placing a bet on the security of the planet and every living thing on it on the chance of creating an intelligence that may fix everything. Hubris may cause their downfalls but they seem certain that if they do they'll destroy everything on the way down.

The year is 2041, all the generations of AI datacenters have finally reached end of life, working on one problem how to fix climate change. The answer is 42.

That is the year, where we will no longer perceive change. Or anything.

There is no chance you have anything approaching what the commercial systems have without at least piggybacking on carbon emission heavy efforts.

You are driving the carbon emission heavy inference by your advocacy of AI. And inference is only one part.

It will happen annyyyy second now... huh maybe days or... (never)

And what do you actually include? Manufacturing, data collection, training, finetuning, inference? And then we have the opportunity cost.