If AI is indeed going to help us reduce emissions, it seems to me that that will be the product of targeted, scientific and industrial use of AI, not shoving AI into a load of commercial products. Are these commercial companies using AI to figure out how to reduce emissions? If not (and maybe even if so), it seems disingenuous to express optimism that their increased energy use will be magically cancelled out by someone else.

Look, I’ve been trying to approach the SCOTUS decision with an open “I’m not a legal expert” mind, but I think this quickly demonstrates how dangerous the decision is. There’s no way this is an official act, and Trump’s insistence that it could be shows his confidence that he can get away with what he wants as president. This is not good for democracy.

Even if AI would be beneficial for humanity in the aggregate, it’s important to ask how that benefit would be distributed.