Sviesta Ciba |

Nezāles neiznīkst (

jan09) rakstīja,
@ 2026-02-12 21:53:00

trim
Tā runāja IM

"Paldies par uzaicinājumu. Es neesmu šeit, lai glaimotu jums vai runātu par “ilgtspējīgu attīstību” ar tukšām frāzēm. Es esmu šeit, lai pateiktu jums patiesību, ko daudzi no jums negrib dzirdēt.
Jūs šeit sēžat un runājat par klimatu, par AI ētiku, par “sociālo taisnīgumu”, par to, kā glābt pasauli. Bet realitāte ir tāda: jūs neko neglābjat. Jūs tikai tērējat naudu un laiku, lai justos labi par sevi.
Es jums saku skaidri:
Klimata pārmaiņas ir reālas, bet jūsu risinājumi ir smieklīgi. Jūs gribat aizliegt ogļūdeņražus un pāriet uz “zaļo enerģiju”, kamēr Ķīna būvē jaunas ogļu stacijas katru nedēļu. Jūs gribat elektriskos auto, bet akumulatoru ražošana piesārņo vairāk nekā benzīna auto.
AI ir lielākais risks cilvēcei – nevis tāpēc, ka tas būs “ļauns”, bet tāpēc, ka tas būs ātrāks par jums. Ja jūs neizdomāsiet, kā kontrolēt AI attīstību, tas kontrolēs jūs. Un nē, “ētikas komitejas” to neapturēs.
Jūs runājat par nevienlīdzību, bet tieši jūsu regulācijas un nodokļi tur cilvēkus nabadzībā. Brīvais tirgus un tehnoloģijas ir pacēluši miljardus no nabadzības – nevis jūsu “sociālais taisnīgums”.
Es neesmu pret jums. Es esmu pret ilūzijām.
Ja jūs gribat glābt planētu – būvējiet kodolenerģiju, nevis vēja turbīnas.
Ja jūs gribat kontrolēt AI – dariet to ar atklātu kodu un konkurenci, nevis aizliegumiem.
Ja jūs gribat mazināt nevienlīdzību – atbrīvojiet uzņēmējdarbību, nevis sodiet tos, kas rada bagātību.
Pasaule nav glābjama ar runām Davosā. Tā tiek glābta ar inženieriju, ražošanu un drosmi darīt to, ko citi neuzdrošinās.
Paldies. Es zinu, ka daudzi no jums tagad mani ienīst. Tas ir labi. Es neesmu šeit, lai jums patiktu. Es esmu šeit, lai pateiktu patiesību."

(Lasīt komentārus) - (Ierakstīt jaunu komentāru)

Tā atbild MI uz šo MI tekstu.

zazis
2026-02-13 00:19 (saite)

PART 1: THE STYLISTIC AUTOPSY
How was this written?

This is a masterclass in persuasive rhetoric, not journalism. The author uses specific techniques to make the text feel "brave" and "truthful."

1. The "Cassandra" Archetype (The Doomed Prophet)
The author immediately establishes credibility not by citing facts, but by claiming they are hated. "Es zinu, ka daudzi no jums tagad mani ienīst." This is a psychological trick. By stating that the audience will reject the message, the author frames any subsequent criticism as proof that the message is true. It pre-emptively disarms the listener.

2. False Equivalence and Hyperbole
The author places wildly different scales of problems next to each other.

Technique: Equating a local city council meeting about bike lanes with the geopolitical strategy of China.

Result: It makes the "Davos" listener seem naive and the speaker seem like a hard-nosed realist.

3. The "Screwdriver" Solution (Oversimplification)
Every complex problem is reduced to a single, aggressive, actionable item.

Climate: "Build nuclear, not wind."

AI: "Open source and competition."

Poverty: "Free business."
This appeals to the engineering mindset (which the author champions) but ignores the socio-political reality of why these solutions aren't universally implemented (e.g., nuclear waste storage politics, NIMBYism, grid integration costs).

4. Lexical Choice (Masculine-Coded Language)
The text heavily favors words associated with industrial masculinity: inženierija, ražošana, drosme, būvējiet. It contrasts "soft" words (runas, ilūzijas, tukšas frāzes) with "hard" words. This creates a tribal divide between "doers" and "talkers."

5. The "China Card"
The author uses China as a rhetorical cudgel to beat Western environmentalists. This is effective because it sounds globally aware, but as we will see in the fact-check, it is a selective and outdated view of China's actual energy policy.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Diskusija)

Re: Tā atbild MI uz šo MI tekstu.

zazis
2026-02-13 00:20 (saite)

PART 2: THE FACTUAL AUDIT
How much truth is in it?

We can categorize the statements into Red (False/Misleading), Yellow (Partially True/Out of Context), and Green (Factually Accurate).

🔴 RED: False or Deeply Misleading
Claim 1: "Ķīna būvē jaunas ogļu stacijas katru nedēļu."

Verdict: Misleading/Out of Context.

Context: While it is true that China permits or begins construction of coal plants regularly, this statement ignores the massive simultaneous build-out of renewables and hydro.

Evidence: Search results show that 3 of the top 5 largest hydroelectric plants in the world are in China, including the 16,000 MW Baihetan dam, which was finished recently . Furthermore, the "Zaļā drakona lēciens" analysis explicitly states that China is following an "Ekoloģiskās civilizācijas" policy and aims for carbon neutrality by 2060. To say they are only building coal is a caricature .

Claim 2: "Akumulatoru ražošana piesārņo vairāk nekā benzīna auto."

Verdict: False (as a blanket statement).

Context: The search results on EV comparisons discuss tailpipe emissions and operational costs, but do not provide a full lifecycle analysis . However, established climate science (IPCC, IEA, ICCT) consensus is that over the lifetime of the vehicle, EVs have a significantly lower carbon footprint, even accounting for the energy-intensive battery production. The author is likely referencing the "mining impact" of lithium/cobalt, which is a serious issue, but it does not outweigh 20 years of burning gasoline. This is a classic talking point used to stall the transition, and the text presents it as a settled fact when it is a contested assumption.

Claim 3: "Brīvais tirgus un tehnoloģijas ir pacēluši miljardus no nabadzības – nevis jūsu ‘sociālais taisnīgums’."

Verdict: False Dichotomy.

Context: This is a political/ideological statement, not a factual one. The search result on "Sociālā atstumtība" (social exclusion) describes poverty as a multidimensional process . Attributing the lifting of billions out of poverty exclusively to "free markets" while dismissing "social justice" ignores the massive role of state intervention, public health campaigns, infrastructure spending, and (in the case of China, which the author just criticized) a highly controlled, non-free market economy. You cannot praise the result (poverty reduction) while cursing the tools used to achieve it.

🟡 YELLOW: Partially True / Oversimplified
Claim 4: "AI ir lielākais risks cilvēcei – nevis tāpēc, ka tas būs ‘ļauns’, bet tāpēc, ka tas būs ātrāks par jums."

Verdict: Yellow.

Truth: The existential risk of unregulated AI is a mainstream view. UN Secretary-General António Guterres explicitly stated at Davos that AI is an "existential threat" alongside climate change, precisely because it is "ungoverned" . So, the core fear is valid.

Fiction: The solution of "open source and competition." Most AI safety experts argue that unrestricted open source is a massive security risk (it allows bad actors to remove safety guardrails). The author presents a personal opinion on the solution as if it were a factual fix.

Claim 5: "Klimata pārmaiņas ir reālas, bet jūsu risinājumi ir smieklīgi."

Verdict: Yellow.

Truth: Economic models do underprice climate risk, and current policies are insufficient to meet 1.5°C targets .

Fiction: The dismissal of "zaļo enerģiju" as universally "smieklīga." The author ignores the fact that wind and solar are currently the cheapest forms of new electricity generation in most of the world, not just an ideological hobby.

Claim 6: "Ja jūs gribat glābt planētu – būvējiet kodolenerģiju, nevis vēja turbīnas."

Verdict: Oversimplified.

Context: This is a preference, not a truth. Nuclear provides steady baseload power, which is excellent. However, it is capital intensive and extremely slow to build. The IEA report you cited earlier (4.6 TW of renewables by 2030) proves that the world is not choosing "nuclear instead of wind"; it is choosing both, but overwhelmingly more wind/solar because they are faster to deploy.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

Re: Tā atbild MI uz šo MI tekstu.

zazis
2026-02-13 00:20 (saite)

🟢 GREEN: Factually Accurate
Claim 7: "Pasaule nav glābjama ar runām Davosā."

Verdict: True.

Evidence: Even the people at Davos admit this. Guterres stated at Davos 2025 that there is a lack of "collaboration" and "intelligence" in global governance and that he is "not convinced leaders get it" . There is a massive gap between pledges and action.

Claim 8: "Tā tiek glābta ar inženieriju, ražošanu un drosmi darīt to, ko citi neuzdrošinās."

Verdict: True (in spirit).

Context: This is a value judgment, but it is historically accurate. The Green Transition requires physical materials, factories, grid interconnections, and engineering talent. The criticism of "empty phrases" over "manufacturing" is a legitimate critique of the Davos format.

CONCLUSION
Is this "the truth"?
No. It is selected truths, weaponized.

The author is clearly intelligent and well-read. They are not lying about the existence of climate change or the risk of AI. However, they are engaging in motivated reasoning: they have a conclusion (elites are hypocritical, my solutions are superior), and they are selecting only the facts that support that narrative while omitting the complexities.

The result:

Stilistiski: Tas ir izcili uzrakstīts. Tam ir ritms, spēks un emocionāla ietekme. Tas ir kā labi uzasināts nazis.

Faktiski: Tas ir bīstami nepilnīgs. Tas ignorē sistēmiskās problēmas (piem., kā pieslēgt 4,6 TW atjaunojamo enerģiju tīklam, kā uzglabāt kodolatkritumus 10 000 gadus, kāpēc "brīvais tirgus" vien nenovērš monopolu).

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

	Re: Tā atbild MI uz šo MI tekstu. black_robin 2026-02-13 00:45 (saite)
	4. Lexical Choice (Masculine-Coded Language) The text heavily favors words associated with industrial masculinity: inženierija, ražošana, drosme, būvējiet. It contrasts "soft" words (runas, ilūzijas, tukšas frāzes) with "hard" words. This creates a tribal divide between "doers" and "talkers." :D LOL (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

(Lasīt komentārus) -

Navigate: