3 ms·

Neither of those ways reverses course, they only reduce emissions. But we have to go net negative on emissions to reverse global warming. Electric devices are

by wilg 2y ago

Neither of those ways reverses course, they only reduce emissions. But we have to go net negative on emissions to reverse global warming. Electric devices are not a major issue, since they can be powered by green energy easily. There's no reasonable path forward that involves picking and choosing what software has acceptable "value" to budget energy for (besides just market forces). We just have to build the power infrastructure and try to make computing energy efficient.

__loam 2y ago
Pedantic opening line aside, I think software engineers in general underestimate how much of our electrical infrastructure still runs on coal and natural gas, and also underestimate the amount of time required to stand up new capacity on "green" sources, especially nuclear. I consider it reasonable to have a conversation about AI with respect to how worth it it is vis a vis climate goals. The verge just ran article that stated that Microsoft's emissions had increased substantially in 2023 even with investments in green infrastructure, with one of their executives stating explicitly that AI had pushed back sustainability goals. I also think it's obvious that the free market has failed to have a meaningful positive impact on this issue considering that this entire problem is caused the negative externalities of emissions, despite solar becoming the cheapest source of electricity. I also disagree that it's not worth discussing computing efficiency with respect to this problem. Crypto is rightly criticized for using a ton of power to do essentially zero useful work. That power could have gone towards displacing some kind of fossil fuel usage but it didn't and that means we now have more work to do with respect to climate goals. According to the article we're commenting on here, Virginia could have powered 1.5 million homes with the power they used on the AI data center boom. And what value did we really get out of it? I believe strongly that it's fair to critique this.
- wilg 2y ago
  Increasing efficiency is good, yes. Crypto sucks because it doesn't do anything useful and intentionally burns compute. If AI is not useful, then we will not need to spend the power on it because no one will want or need it. If it is useful, we will need to spend the power on it.
  - __loam 2y ago
    AI is useful, that's kind of the issue. It looks amazing until you realize how expensive and unreliable it is.
    - wilg 2y ago
      If its useful it is okay if its expensive and unreliable.
      - __loam 2y ago
        I disagree that that's always true. AI consumes some value and produces some other value. I'm skeptical that the output value will be worth more than the amount of money and electricity invested in this stuff.
        wilg 2y ago
        The money doesn't matter much, and the electricity is worth rolling the dice on.
        easyPZ 2y ago
        [flagged]
  - preisschild 2y ago
    > Crypto sucks because it doesn't do anything useful and intentionally burns compute Thats not true. Cryptocurrencies, such as Monero, enable you to completely anonymously send money fast and cheap over the internet. This has value for many people.

by wilg 2y ago

__loam 2y ago

Pedantic opening line aside, I think software engineers in general underestimate how much of our electrical infrastructure still runs on coal and natural gas, and also underestimate the amount of time required to stand up new capacity on "green" sources, especially nuclear. I consider it reasonable to have a conversation about AI with respect to how worth it it is vis a vis climate goals. The verge just ran article that stated that Microsoft's emissions had increased substantially in 2023 even with investments in green infrastructure, with one of their executives stating explicitly that AI had pushed back sustainability goals. I also think it's obvious that the free market has failed to have a meaningful positive impact on this issue considering that this entire problem is caused the negative externalities of emissions, despite solar becoming the cheapest source of electricity. I also disagree that it's not worth discussing computing efficiency with respect to this problem. Crypto is rightly criticized for using a ton of power to do essentially zero useful work. That power could have gone towards displacing some kind of fossil fuel usage but it didn't and that means we now have more work to do with respect to climate goals. According to the article we're commenting on here, Virginia could have powered 1.5 million homes with the power they used on the AI data center boom. And what value did we really get out of it? I believe strongly that it's fair to critique this.

wilg 2y ago
Increasing efficiency is good, yes. Crypto sucks because it doesn't do anything useful and intentionally burns compute. If AI is not useful, then we will not need to spend the power on it because no one will want or need it. If it is useful, we will need to spend the power on it.
- __loam 2y ago
  AI is useful, that's kind of the issue. It looks amazing until you realize how expensive and unreliable it is.
  - wilg 2y ago
    If its useful it is okay if its expensive and unreliable.
    - __loam 2y ago
      I disagree that that's always true. AI consumes some value and produces some other value. I'm skeptical that the output value will be worth more than the amount of money and electricity invested in this stuff.
      - wilg 2y ago
        The money doesn't matter much, and the electricity is worth rolling the dice on.
        easyPZ 2y ago
        [flagged]
- preisschild 2y ago
  > Crypto sucks because it doesn't do anything useful and intentionally burns compute Thats not true. Cryptocurrencies, such as Monero, enable you to completely anonymously send money fast and cheap over the internet. This has value for many people.