hacklink hack forum hacklink film izle hacklink marsbahisizmir escortsahabetpornJojobet

Tag: dangerous

  • Climate change added 41 days of dangerous heat around world in 2024

    Climate change added 41 days of dangerous heat around world in 2024

    People around the world suffered an average of 41 extra days of dangerous heat this year because of human-caused climate change, according to a group of scientists who also said that climate change worsened much of the world’s damaging weather throughout 2024.

    The analysis from World Weather Attribution and Climate Central researchers comes at the end of a year that shattered climate record after climate record as heat across the globe made 2024 likely to be its hottest ever measured and a slew of other fatal weather events spared few.

    “The finding is devastating but utterly unsurprising: Climate change did play a role, and often a major role in most of the events we studied, making heat, droughts, tropical cyclones and heavy rainfall more likely and more intense across the world, destroying lives and livelihoods of millions and often uncounted numbers of people,” Friederike Otto, the lead of World Weather Attribution and an Imperial College climate scientist, said during a media briefing on the scientists’ findings. “As long as the world keeps burning fossil fuels, this will only get worse.”

    Millions of people endured stifling heat this year. Northern California and Death Valley baked. Sizzling daytime temperatures scorched Mexico and Central America. Heat endangered already vulnerable children in West Africa. Skyrocketing southern European temperatures forced Greece to close the Acropolis. In South and Southeast Asian countries, heat forced school closures. Earth experienced some of the hottest days ever measured and its hottest-yet summer, with a 13-month heat streak that just barely broke.

    To do its heat analysis, the team of volunteer international scientists compared daily temperatures around the globe in 2024 to the temperatures that would have been expected in a world without climate change. The results are not yet peer-reviewed, but researchers use peer-reviewed methods.

    Some areas saw 150 days or more of extreme heat due to climate change.

    “The poorest, least developed countries on the planet are the places that are experiencing even higher numbers,” said Kristina Dahl, vice president of climate science at Climate Central.

    What’s worse, heat-related deaths are often underreported.

    “People don’t have to die in heat waves. But if we can’t communicate convincingly, ‘but actually a lot of people are dying,’ it’s much harder to raise this awareness,” Otto said. “Heat waves are by far the deadliest extreme event, and they are the extreme events where climate change is a real game changer.”

    This year was a warning that the planet is getting dangerously close to the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) warming limit compared to the pre-industrial average, according to the scientists. Earth is expected to soon edge past that threshold, although it’s not considered to have been breached until that warming is sustained over decades.

    The researchers closely examined 29 extreme weather events this year that killed at least 3,700 people and displaced millions, and found that 26 of them had clear links to climate change.

    The El Niño weather pattern, which naturally warms the Pacific Ocean and changes weather around the world, made some of this weather more likely earlier in the year. But the researchers said most of their studies found that climate change played a bigger role than that phenomenon in fueling 2024’s events. Warm ocean waters and warmer air fueled more destructive storms, according to the researchers, while temperatures led to many record-breaking downpours.

    Jennifer Francis, a climate scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center in Cape Cod who wasn’t involved in the research, said the science and findings were sound.

    “Extreme weather will continue to become more frequent, intense, destructive, costly, and deadly, until we can lower the concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere,” she said.

    Significantly more climate extremes could be expected without action, the United Nations Environment Programme said in the fall, as more planet-warming carbon dioxide has been sent into the air this year by burning fossil fuels than last year.

    But the deaths and damages from extreme weather events aren’t inevitable, said Julie Arrighi, director of programmes at the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre and part of the research.

    “Countries can reduce those impacts by preparing for climate change and adapting for climate change, and while the challenges faced by individual countries or systems or places vary around the world, we do see that every country has a role to play,” she said.

    ___

    Alexa St. John is an Associated Press climate solutions reporter. Follow her on X: @alexa_stjohn. Reach her at ast.john@ap.org.

    ___

    Read more of AP’s climate coverage at http://www.apnews.com/climate-and-environment

    ___

    The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.



    Source link

  • How do you know when AI is powerful enough to be dangerous? Regulators try to do the math

    How do you know when AI is powerful enough to be dangerous? Regulators try to do the math

    How do you know if an artificial intelligence system is so powerful that it poses a security danger and shouldn’t be unleashed without careful oversight?

    For regulators trying to put guardrails on AI, it’s mostly about the arithmetic. Specifically, an AI model trained on 10 to the 26th floating-point operations per second must now be reported to the U.S. government and could soon trigger even stricter requirements in California.

    Say what? Well, if you’re counting the zeroes, that’s 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or 100 septillion, calculations each second, using a measure known as flops.

    What it signals to some lawmakers and AI safety advocates is a level of computing power that might enable rapidly advancing AI technology to create or proliferate weapons of mass destruction, or conduct catastrophic cyberattacks.

    Those who’ve crafted such regulations acknowledge they are an imperfect starting point to distinguish today’s highest-performing generative AI systems — largely made by California-based companies like Anthropic, Google, Meta Platforms and ChatGPT-maker OpenAI — from the next generation that could be even more powerful.

    Critics have pounced on the thresholds as arbitrary — an attempt by governments to regulate math.

    “Ten to the 26th flops,” said venture capitalist Ben Horowitz on a podcast this summer. “Well, what if that’s the size of the model you need to, like, cure cancer?”

    An executive order signed by President Joe Biden last year relies on that threshold. So does California’s newly passed AI safety legislation — which Gov. Gavin Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign into law or veto. California adds a second metric to the equation: regulated AI models must also cost at least $100 million to build.

    Following Biden’s footsteps, the European Union’s sweeping AI Act also measures floating-point operations per second, or flops, but sets the bar 10 times lower at 10 to the 25th power. That covers some AI systems already in operation. China’s government has also looked at measuring computing power to determine which AI systems need safeguards.

    No publicly available models meet the higher California threshold, though it’s likely that some companies have already started to build them. If so, they’re supposed to be sharing certain details and safety precautions with the U.S. government. Biden employed a Korean War-era law to compel tech companies to alert the U.S. Commerce Department if they’re building such AI models.

    AI researchers are still debating how best to evaluate the capabilities of the latest generative AI technology and how it compares to human intelligence. There are tests that judge AI on solving puzzles, logical reasoning or how swiftly and accurately it predicts what text will answer a person’s chatbot query. Those measurements help assess an AI tool’s usefulness for a given task, but there’s no easy way of knowing which one is so widely capable that it poses a danger to humanity.

    “This computation, this flop number, by general consensus is sort of the best thing we have along those lines,” said physicist Anthony Aguirre, executive director of the Future of Life Institute, which has advocated for the passage of California’s Senate Bill 1047 and other AI safety rules around the world.

    Floating point arithmetic might sound fancy “but it’s really just numbers that are being added or multiplied together,” making it one of the simplest ways to assess an AI model’s capability and risk, Aguirre said.

    “Most of what these things are doing is just multiplying big tables of numbers together,” he said. “You can just think of typing in a couple of numbers into your calculator and adding or multiplying them. And that’s what it’s doing — ten trillion times or a hundred trillion times.”

    For some tech leaders, however, it’s too simple and hard-coded a metric. There’s “no clear scientific support” for using such metrics as a proxy for risk, argued computer scientist Sara Hooker, who leads AI company Cohere’s nonprofit research division, in a July paper.

    “Compute thresholds as currently implemented are shortsighted and likely to fail to mitigate risk,” she wrote.

    Venture capitalist Horowitz and his business partner Marc Andreessen, founders of the influential Silicon Valley investment firm Andreessen Horowitz, have attacked the Biden administration as well as California lawmakers for AI regulations they argue could snuff out an emerging AI startup industry.

    For Horowitz, putting limits on “how much math you’re allowed to do” reflects a mistaken belief there will only be a handful of big companies making the most capable models and you can put “flaming hoops in front of them and they’ll jump through them and it’s fine.”

    In response to the criticism, the sponsor of California’s legislation sent a letter to Andreessen Horowitz this summer defending the bill, including its regulatory thresholds.

    Regulating at over 10 to the 26th flops is “a clear way to exclude from safety testing requirements many models that we know, based on current evidence, lack the ability to cause critical harm,” wrote state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco. Existing publicly released models “have been tested for highly hazardous capabilities and would not be covered by the bill,” Wiener said.

    Both Wiener and the Biden executive order treat the metric as a temporary one that could be adjusted later.

    Yacine Jernite, who works on policy research at the AI company Hugging Face, said the flops metric emerged in “good faith” ahead of last year’s Biden order but is already starting to grow obsolete. AI developers are doing more with smaller models requiring less computing power, while the potential harms of more widely used AI products won’t trigger California’s proposed scrutiny.

    “Some models are going to have a drastically larger impact on society, and those should be held to a higher standard, whereas some others are more exploratory and it might not make sense to have the same kind of process to certify them,” Jernite said.

    Aguirre said it makes sense for regulators to be nimble, but he characterizes some opposition to the flops threshold as an attempt to avoid any regulation of AI systems as they grow more capable.

    “This is all happening very fast,” Aguirre said. “I think there’s a legitimate criticism that these thresholds are not capturing exactly what we want them to capture. But I think it’s a poor argument to go from that to, ‘Well, we just shouldn’t do anything and just cross our fingers and hope for the best.’”

    Source link