In 2024, Meta had aroused hope by presenting a tool based on its AI dedicated to climate and that, according to the company, effectively eliminates carbon dioxide in the air. He even described this “revolutionary” discovery.
But in a Financial Times survey, researchers from the University of Heriot-Watt located in Lausana explain what target he finally told something.
Of the “Charabia” transmitted by goal
They have proof that none of the 135 materials cited in the target work made it possible to achieve such a result, and even that some simply did not exist.
However, the goal study had aroused a lot of hope. CO2 capture to prevent it from accumulating in the air is an still disputed way of fighting climate change. It has not yet been demonstrated, especially at the energy level. Meta is not the only company that works on the subject: Microsoft has also implemented large investments to one day a cheaper generative the environment for the environment.
These two companies also seek to “buy” CO2 credits to other large contaminators thanks to the techniques they try to develop.
According to the researchers, the target work for an excess of confidence in the way they were carried out. The giant of social networks had indicated that he had used artificial intelligence to compile data in less time than a calculation laboratory composed of humans.
CO2 capture far from being viable
But when these same humans tried to reproduce the results obtained by goal, it seemed that it had overaged the capacity of the links between the cited materials and the CO2. Their used tools could not process the data correctly.
Worse: some calculations “correspond to incredible or highly unstable structures.”
Meta responded to the Financial Times, explaining that their data were based on “valid and useful calculations to train its main language models.” However, the company has added that “it always believed in the open source”: the data were distributed in this way, because it allowed “collaboration and innovation.” In this case, the open source has allowed your own work to begin.
He also said that the materials identified in his study were “promising and deserved a more in -depth investigation.” It remains to be seen if they really exist.
If IPCC experts, the independent group of international scientists who focus on the weather, are not closed to CO2 capture, however, they had estimated that this technology would be very expensive, in money as in energy. They had also added that this should not be seen as a large -scale viable solution, due to the lack of conclusive results at this stage.
Source: BFM TV
