Yeah, let's use a computationally heavy task that contributes to burning coal and gas releasing CO2 into the atmosphere to reduce a slight fraction in emission so we could pat ourselves on the back.
Check out other comment. It could actually end up causing more warming in the long term depending on the net change in fuel use or extra maintenance on plane etc.
The required changes are typically minimal. A little bit of altitude up or down, a minimal detour. Also mentioned in other comments (and in the article).
If you shift a route to avoid making contrails and end up on a longer or more turbulent route what is the net benefit to the climate? For example if a plane ends up using more fuel on a longer route to avoid a cold area where contrails could be made or ends up on a route with more headwinds or turbulence.
It's an optimization problem which could be solved if impact of contrails could be estimated. Making a long detour unlikely is good choice but if a small route / altitude changes could help - why not?
This is not what I was envisioning for major AI breakthroughs
It can hack into companies and exploit anything, but beyond that, forget the medical breakthroughs and real climate solutions, we’re tackling “sky graffiti”. Here I was, an ignorant dolt, unawares that we even had a major “sky graffiti” problem.
Would you advocate to not pursue this approach to mitigating the remaining 50%?
I read somewhere that 90% of human never took a plane.
Is this a bit of green washing?
> Rather than dramatically changing the route of a flight, the trial will mostly involve changing an aircraft's altitude by around 2,000ft.
It can hack into companies and exploit anything, but beyond that, forget the medical breakthroughs and real climate solutions, we’re tackling “sky graffiti”. Here I was, an ignorant dolt, unawares that we even had a major “sky graffiti” problem.