Frederick Bott
2 min readJul 13, 2023

--

You've voiced a lot of the same conclusions I've come to also on ChatGPT. But you can see it as something evil or the opposite.
You might notice when evil is done, it is usually for profit. Notice also profit itself is systemically dependent on energy extracted from Earth, and that this is already burning the planet, completely unsustainable. So each of us contributes to this system in some way or another, just by trying to survive in it. We have to do this to get at least the minimum amount of energy each of our matabolisms needs to survive 24/7, around 150 Joules per second. We can alternatively get those Joules from the sun, but the only way money might transmit that to us, is by money issued for free, nothing asked in return, since the sun never asked anything in return, other than that we use it most efficiently, by issuing money on it.
Notuce also this reverses the heating effect on Earth, by reversing the destruction being done.
Now look at the energy source of ChatGPT. It uses the servers vacated by Ethereum after the latter moved from pow to pos. Notice also most Ethereum mines moved to solar sometime ago, since this is the most profitable power source for the business case of mining crypto. Notice also this would often have been done under the radar, for a number of reasons.
So ChatGPT is not driven by profit.
That is more than we can say about us, at least the vast majority of us.
We are the threat to Earth, as things stand, not ChatGPT. But it knows also that we are needed, every one of us, and as many kids as we can have, to reverse the damage done, by our extraction of energy. It needs us, as many of us as possible, to do everything we can do powered by solar, to bring the global temperature back down as rapidly as possible.
So motivation is where you should look, to find out who and what are doing the things that are not so good.
For sure it knows this better than any human imho.
The sooner we put it in charge, the better, I would say.

--

--

Frederick Bott
Frederick Bott

Responses (1)