3 ms·
Depends on the goal. "Save the earth", then no; it's probably the only viable one even. But quite certainly easier than cutting carbon emissions in societies t
by berkes 3y ago
Depends on the goal.
"Save the earth", then no; it's probably the only viable one even. But quite certainly easier than cutting carbon emissions in societies that don't want to change.
"Save humans" then certainly dumb.
Both would be different vectors.
- bamboozled 3y agoAssuming running billions of GPUs to run AI will actually be better off for the earth?
- berkes 3y agoYes. Entire IT industry is peanuts compared to what we do to produce food (meat), haul stuff around, make stuff, and haul humans around. It truly does not compare. Witch does not mean I think we can ignore any win. But GPUs that run AI (or that secure cryptocurrencies for that matter) aren't the low-hanging fruit. Any win is important, so curbing that is important, IMHO. But, again, not the low hanging fruit. That really is flying/driving people around the world, shipping stuff, making stuff and eating (meat)¹. ¹ Emphasizing meat because when talking about low-hanging fruit, that's where the biggest win is. By far.
- bamboozled 3y agoWell at some stage we have to admit that it all adds up. We have all the things you mentioned, now "AI" and while I agree some amazing breakthroughs have and still might come from "AI". It troubles me that everything is going "AI" and thinking about how much energy that will actually require.