I'm not sure I agree with you. The only widely cited quantitative guess at this scenario I could find in a brief trawl puts the chance of any "climate-driven existential catastrophe" this century at about 0.1 percent [1].
"Extinction" is a stricter outcome than “existential catastrophe", so I would imagine the odds this century are even lower than 0.1 percent. In other words: don't resign yourself to the extinction of humanity in your lifetime - it's highly unlikely, and you're just going to be feeding the defeatism that is so tempting when external events are so seemingly negative.
As sibling commenter to this post notes though, I would imagine that mass unrest, famines, death etc. in less-developed parts of the world will occur, with knock-on effects for the developed world.
A better approach is scissors (cut the cord) or don't buy "smart" anything --- unless it actually costs *less* and can be easily used in a "dumb" mode (TV for example).
"Smart" means it intends to take advantage of "dumb" users. Any "smarts" will eventually be used against you by the manufacturer. They simply can't resist the extra $.
I have a 50 inch "smart" TV that serves as a dumb display and nothing more.
Ironically perhaps, this article has some very tell-tale AI-authored language to it e.g. "This founder didn’t fake it — he outsourced it". The cadence and writing style are redolent of ChatGPT.
Think about it: the hoax could be published by someone to bolster their LinkedIn profile to sell code they themselves will outsource to LLMs ; but the joke is on them, as LinkedIn engagement is all automated through bots anyway, so there is no audience ; and here we are on HN where you, hoppp, are the only human on this thread and we're all bots prompted by the author to generate engagement.
