18/21

Some of them, like the one with the cubes or the flowers, are simple enough that an AI can replicate them relatively reliably. There isn't much technique or composition to works like that, at which point it's more guesswork than knowing which one is made by a computer. However, everything that exceeds the simplicity of a bunch of geometric figures or a flower bouquet like the surrealist archway or van Gogh's Sunflowers looks just awful if an AI tries to imitate it.

Then again, these things look awful and pointless to the general consumer too, so I guess with how hyped AI is among the techbros constantly defending it under posts like this one, art will become even more elitist than it already is and the simpleton consumers will be fed by a tireless AI prompt algorithm like they're unworthy of the love and care a real human puts into designs and artworks.

How anyone could want that escapes me. Then again, much of what's happening in the world these days escapes me.

Right, because the current conundrum around AI art doesn't prove in the slightest that everyone is replaceable.

/s

Again, I didn't argue about today, and I didn't argue about the potency of the technology, as I've stated in my original comment:

>Not because of a lack of effort, or technological prowess on our part, but simply because we evolve too fast. Our planet's natural forces will not be able to support our growth and our tech indefinitely.

As I've already clarified, there is only so much energy in the forces our planet provides, and I believe it to be in the realm of possibility that we will surpass that maximum potential within the next 20 years at the earliest, within the next 80 at the latest.

The only tech we currently have that might be able to keep up is solar, and at this point we might as well create a dyson swarm. That would probably take less funding and less time than trying to make solar panels power the entire planet. What would likely take even less funding and even less time than that is making fusion work. I mean, fusion already is a emission free, near limitless "force of nature" if you will. Solar is just our current technological method for harnessing the fusion power of the sun.

I never said "it's never going to work" and neither did I say "it's not possible". From your response I can only conclude you didn't actually read what I wrote and simply took offense at me saying that renewables aren't the pinnacle of energy generation technology, followed by the recitation of the most common arguments pro-renewables, none of which I have attacked or disputed. I actually agree that renewables are worth investing in, despite my point about it likely not fulfilling the increasing energy needs in the future 20-80 years from now.

Five paragraphs spent to argue against a point I never made.

The problem I see with supporting the entire grid with renewables isn't just weather, it's scale.

Right now, the total power consumption of the planet is covered to about 60% by fossil fuels (rough estimate of the global average on my part), and billions if not trillions had to be invested in not one, not two, but all renewable energy sources to even achieve 30-40% of the global need (not to mention the enormous toll the production of all of that took on our planet's environment).

The global need is also rising as new, more powerful technologies emerge that require more power output. Unless renewable energy sees several more breakthroughs of similar magnitude as this current one in nuclear fusion, I have my doubts that it will be scalable enough to cover the entire globe's power needs.

That is ignoring already all the communities (totalling millions of people) worldwide where no renewable energy source is viable or suitable to cover the people's power needs; where fossil fuels would need to continue being used.

Fossil fuels have been used for more than a century. Currently, 35 billion tons are burned each year. An unfathomable number that exceeds the capabilities of human imagination. Each year. You could say fossil fuels would be damn near "renewable" themselves, if it weren't our main power source and we wouldn't be using billions of tons a year. Switching the entire grid to renewables only delays the inevitable in my opinion. At some point wind won't power our house appliances anymore. Solar won't cut it for our EVs anymore. Hydro is only available at coastlines and near huge rivers. Good spots to harness geothermal energy are even rarer to find. Not because of a lack of effor, or technological prowess on our part, but simply because we evolve too fast. Our planet's natural forces will not be able to support our growth and our tech indefinitely. It's a part of the equation that often goes ignored: our own, future tech advancements and the power they will consume. Wind is only so strong. Only so much UV light gets through our atmosphere. Only so much force is carried by a wave. Magma only gets so hot. It may work for 20, 40, maybe even 80 years, but then the cycle will repeat. We used to burn wood for energy, until we realised we're destroying ourselves with that. Then we burned coal and oil, and now we realise we're destroying ourselves with that. The same will happen again with renewables. The same might happen with fusion, but with enough luck, maybe it'll take a lot longer to happen than it would with 100% renewables.

Either we invent some never-before-seen, huge ass batteries, or we find a way to make fusion work. I don't see any other ways for us to make it to the next century.

And like any doomer in this sub you only talk about the existence of problems without naming any of them.

"You're wrong because I'm right."

What decentralised, low-tech, and cheap power source do you propose should be used instead that also has little to no emissions as well as running stable 24/7 while not being bound to its location's weather or environment?

Good job taking the sentence completely out of the context of the argument.

>For those problems, the industrial revolutions are the cause, but it's the human factor that perpetuates them.

I never claimed it all to be perfect, I never said there wouldn't be any problems left to solve, looking at the past years there are quite a bunch of problems yet to be solved. I said the human factor is the problem, and not the technology.

The industrial revolutions have drastically improved the standard of living across the board in western nations with every subsequent revolution since the first. To deny that is to be completely disconnected from any semblence of common sense.

Just the fact almost nobody in any western nation has to worry about water, food or shelter answers that question for you. The industrial revolutions have also produced for us the tools needed to fix the problems they have caused. For those problems, the industrial revolutions are the cause, but it's the human factor that perpetuates them.

We wouldn't even be having this conversation without the industrial revolutions, because the internet would (likely) not exist in the form it exists today, if at all, and you certainly wouldn't be able to buy a pocket computer more powerful than the one that sent mankind to the Moon for less than 1/3rd of an average month's salary.