AI agent 完成任务的实际速度比人类快数倍——但这个事实几乎从未出现在主流 AI 能力讨论中。「2 小时时间地平线」被大众理解为「AI 能做人类 2 小时的工作」，但实际上 AI 可能只需 20-30 分钟就完成了这个任务。这意味着 AI 的实际生产力倍数远高于时间地平线数字所暗示的，而低估 AI 效率的讨论普遍存在。

• for: carbon budget - underestimate, IPCC - underestimate, 1.5Deg C - underestimate, question, question - revise 1.5 Deg C target downwards?

• highlight

  • the 1.5 Deg C target does not account for cascading tipping points. In fact the cascading tipping point research is not accounted for in any of:
    • current climate models
    • global carbon estimates
    • IPCC
  • the implications are that the carbon budget is even smaller than the current number.
  • the implications are that 1.5 Deg C is not the threshold we should be aiming for, but even less. We are now at 1.2 so it has to be 1.3 or 1.4.

• question

  • Given the underestimates, should the target actually be revised downwards to 1.3 or 1.4 deg C?

• Title: Faster than expected

• subtitle: why most climate scientists can’t tell the truth (in public) Author: Jackson Damien

• This is a good article written from a psychotherapist's perspective,

• examining the psychology behind why published, mainstream, peer reviewed climate change research is always dangerously lagging behind current research,
• and recommending what interventions could be be taken to remedy this
• This your of scientific misinformation coming from scientists themselves
• gives minimizers and denialists the very ammunition they need to legitimise delay of the urgently needed system change.
• What climate scientists say In public is far from what they believe in private.
• For instance, many climate scientists don't believe 1.5 Deg. C target is plausible anymore, but don't say so in public.
• That reticence is due to fear of violating accepted scientific social norms,
• being labeled alarmist and risk losing their job.
• That creates a collective cognitive dissonance that acts as a feedback signal
• for society to implement change at a dangerously slow pace
• and to not spend the necessary resources to prepare for the harm already baked in.
• The result of this choice dissonance is that
• there is no collective sense of an emergency or a global wartime mobilisation scale of collective behaviour.
• Our actions are not commensurate to the permanent emergency state we are now in.
• The appropriate response that is suggested is for the entire climate science community to form a coalition that creates a new kind of peer reviewed publishing and reporting
• that publicly responds to the current and live knowledge that is being discovered every day.
• This is done from a planetary and permanent emergency perspective in order to eliminate the dangerous delays that create the wrong human collective behavioural responses.