Eric Schmidt’s Risky Bet on AI and Climate Change
We recorded 16 claims from this post. 4 were checked against evidence. 12 can’t be checked. 2 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (16)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“Schmidt needless to say has a large stake in the companies in building in AI, and I think we need to take those potential conflicts of interest seriously.”
What we tested: Schmidt's large stake in AI companies creates potential conflicts of interest that should be taken seriously when weighing his views on AI and climate.
Assessment: ContradictedSaid
“We have been told that AI will “solve physics” (per Sam Altman), make major breakthroughs in medicine, battery technology, etc, but so far none of that has materialized.”
What we tested: None of the promised AI advances, such as 'solving physics' (per Sam Altman) or major breakthroughs in medicine and battery technology, has materialized so far.
What happened: The paper reports demonstrated accuracy in the CASP14 assessment conducted in May–July 2020. Together with e2, it establishes an achieved major research advance rather than an untested promise. (Nature, )
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“Almost every putative virtue of AI (aside from making a small number of people rich) has been promissory.”
What we tested: Almost every claimed benefit of AI, other than enriching a few people, has so far been only a promise.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“Even though some of the drawbacks, which inherently are less dependent on reliably and tight causal reasoning, such as misinformation use, nonconsensual deepfake porn, ans deepfake kidnapping scams, are already here to say).”
What we tested: Some of AI's drawbacks, which are inherently less dependent on reliable and tight causal reasoning, such as misinformation, nonconsensual deepfake porn, and deepfake kidnapping scams, are already here to stay.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“One key assumption Schmidt makes is that AI will be eventually worth essentially arbitrary environmental costs. For now, this seems very premature.”
What we tested: For now, Schmidt's assumption that AI will eventually be worth essentially arbitrary environmental costs seems very premature.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“All of the major potential virtues are quite speculative.”
What we tested: All the major potential benefits of AI are quite speculative.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“The case for techno-utopia , especially with current technology —which struggles with reasoning in open-ended domains, especially in rare situations with smaller amounts of specific data — is so far very abstract and vague.”
What we tested: Current AI struggles with reasoning in open-ended domains, especially rare data-poor situations, and the case for techno-utopia is so far abstract and vague.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“The case that AI will do serious harm to the environment if we continue on the current path is actually much stronger.”
What we tested: The case that AI will do serious harm to the environment if we continue on the current path is much stronger than the case for AI's putative benefits.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“Other forms of AI, that are more domain-specific and specialized might help; those aren’t actually the ones getting the massive funding – or doing the massive harm.”
What we tested: Specialized, domain-specific AI might help with climate change, but it is not the kind getting massive funding or causing massive harm.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“GenAI, which is consuming all the power, probably isn’t going to do a whole lot for addressing climate change, when it can’t even reason reliably about river crossing problems.”
What we tested: GenAI, which is consuming all the power, probably isn't going to do a whole lot for addressing climate change, given that it can't even reason reliably about river crossing problems.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“It shouldn’t be up to a few billionaires to decide, and profit-driven companies with unelected leaders shouldn’t decide on their own, for all of us. Society has to have a vote here.”
What we tested: Decisions on AI's environmental bet should not be left to billionaires or profit-driven companies; society must have a vote.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“We need independent scientists asking about whether the best (rather than simply most conveniently at hand) technologies would be used, and what the odds are of success, and the costs are of any major bets, so we can make a careful decision about what it is worth it.”
What we tested: Independent scientists should assess the technologies, odds of success, and costs of major AI bets before they are made.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“Ultimately, we can’t, or at least shouldn’t, place massive bets like these without transparency and accountability.”
What we tested: Massive bets on AI's environmental costs should not be made without transparency and accountability.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“For the love of all that is beautiful on this planet, I hope that we think extremely carefully before going literally all in with the Earth on an unproven technology.”
What we tested: Marcus hopes we will think extremely carefully before going literally all in with the Earth on an unproven technology (AI).
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“Chatbots and movie synthesis machines (perhaps the most energetically costly systems) are fun, maybe even amazing - but I don’t think we should be risking our planet for them.”
What we tested: We should not risk the planet for chatbots and video synthesis systems.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“Diverting funding from them to more focused efforts around special-purpose AI addressing climate change might make more sense.”
What we tested: It might make more sense to divert funding from chatbots and video synthesis to special-purpose AI addressing climate change.
Held from this post (2)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: If GPT-5 isn't magic, people will try for GPT-6 and risk even more harm to the environment, upping the current harm by many orders of magnitude.
- The two reviews read the claim differently