3 ms·
This is the tragedy of the commons. Every industry contributes a negligible amount. It is logical and rational to maximize your own benefites by contributing ne
by corethree 3y ago
This is the tragedy of the commons. Every industry contributes a negligible amount. It is logical and rational to maximize your own benefites by contributing negligible damage to the environment.
The tragedy arises in aggregate. When every industry contributes negligible amounts at the same time the aggregate contribution is no longer negligible. Rational individual action leads to total destruction.
Yeah we are all guilty. Even when we contribute negligible amounts.
- rcpt 3y ago> Every industry contributes a negligible amount. What? No.
- corethree 3y agoPractically yes. You have to look at it more granularly. Likely you're looking at it by economic sector. You need to look at it by sub industries in industries. That's more closer to the logical perspective people are acting on.
- Scea91 3y agoWhat stumbles me is information like the following [1] > Indeed, making the much bigger model, the GPT-3 with 175 billion parameters, emitted over 550 tons of CO2e while consuming 1,287 MW hours of electricity, per computer scientist Kate Saenko. It’s the same amount of emissions as a single person taking 550 roundtrip flights between New York and San Francisco. Specifically, I struggle with the interpretation where this is presented as significant amount. To me, training GPT-3 at the cost of about a SINGLE New York-San Francisco return flight is practically negligible. I wonder whether for example at a conference like NeurIPS the carbon cost of all the experiments is exceeded by the carbon cost of participant travel to the conference. My guess is that probably yes. [1] https://carboncredits.com/how-big-is-the-co2-footprint-of-ai-models-chatgpts-emissions/ https://carboncredits.com/how-big-is-the-co2-footprint-of-ai...