3 ms·

Generative AI is a climate disaster

29 points by no_wizard 2y ago

cmovq 2y ago
We should focus on less harmful energy production rather than limiting energy use and inhibiting progress
- discreteevent 2y ago
  Unfortunately our record so far is: "I'll just have another ice cream and then go for a run later". We need to do the inverse or we will end up being too fat (or dead) to run.
squigz 2y ago
The article opens with a comparison to cryptocurrency energy use. I find this to be a poor comparison, because the use-cases for generative AI seem much more apparent to me. In any case... What other areas widely use a lot of power that people don't complain about? I wonder how much energy the adult video industry uses? Is the problem that these companies are willing to abandon their 'pledges' so readily for some more money? Then hold them accountable.
- slowmovintarget 2y ago
  The problem is that environmental costs are externalized. That means that damage, generally speaking, and the cost to repair, mitigate, or avoid it, are not factored in to the operating costs and pricing of goods and services that cause such damage. Cap and trade as attempted, didn't actually fix this (as its proponents claimed). Instead, it created a way to kick the can down the road, and created a temporary carbon Ponzi scheme.
  - squigz 2y ago
    To be clear, I do agree with you, but my point is that directing these frustrations at "AI" technology doesn't make sense.
cynicalsecurity 2y ago
The climate disaster is that we are still not using fusion energy or recycled atomic energy.
- antisthenes 2y ago
  We are using fusion energy. All the time.
  - slowmovintarget 2y ago
    From the most unbelievably efficient reactor known to exist.
cocodill 2y ago
[flagged]
jmclnx 2y ago
Nice colors, black text on a black background. Luckily lynx was able to format it correctly. But the article was interesting in spite of its colors. a couple of quotes taken out of context: >despite its previous promises to hit net-zero emissions by 2030 >carbon goal was set before the generative AI moment 1.5C is a pipe dream now, IIRC, CO2 increased in 2023 and will probably increase in 2024. I expect we will be extremely lucky to stay under 3C. At least in the US, the politicians in one party just talks about it and does a little bit to try and avoid it. And when it looks like Oil prices will hurt their re-election chances, starts doing all it can to get oil prices down. The other party ignores it completely and sticks their head in the sand. The end result, good luck to the young :( In the US, for climate change only, it does not matter who gets elected. One party may slow the race to 4C down, the other party it is "5C here we come while driving our hummers into the sunset".
squigz 2y ago
I pretty thoroughly disagree with the premise of this, but I'm not sure why it was dead. Vouched.

29 points by no_wizard 2y ago

cmovq 2y ago

We should focus on less harmful energy production rather than limiting energy use and inhibiting progress

discreteevent 2y ago
Unfortunately our record so far is: "I'll just have another ice cream and then go for a run later". We need to do the inverse or we will end up being too fat (or dead) to run.

squigz 2y ago

The article opens with a comparison to cryptocurrency energy use. I find this to be a poor comparison, because the use-cases for generative AI seem much more apparent to me. In any case... What other areas widely use a lot of power that people don't complain about? I wonder how much energy the adult video industry uses? Is the problem that these companies are willing to abandon their 'pledges' so readily for some more money? Then hold them accountable.

slowmovintarget 2y ago
The problem is that environmental costs are externalized. That means that damage, generally speaking, and the cost to repair, mitigate, or avoid it, are not factored in to the operating costs and pricing of goods and services that cause such damage. Cap and trade as attempted, didn't actually fix this (as its proponents claimed). Instead, it created a way to kick the can down the road, and created a temporary carbon Ponzi scheme.
- squigz 2y ago
  To be clear, I do agree with you, but my point is that directing these frustrations at "AI" technology doesn't make sense.

cynicalsecurity 2y ago

The climate disaster is that we are still not using fusion energy or recycled atomic energy.

antisthenes 2y ago
We are using fusion energy. All the time.
- slowmovintarget 2y ago
  From the most unbelievably efficient reactor known to exist.

cocodill 2y ago

[flagged]

jmclnx 2y ago

Nice colors, black text on a black background. Luckily lynx was able to format it correctly. But the article was interesting in spite of its colors. a couple of quotes taken out of context: >despite its previous promises to hit net-zero emissions by 2030 >carbon goal was set before the generative AI moment 1.5C is a pipe dream now, IIRC, CO2 increased in 2023 and will probably increase in 2024. I expect we will be extremely lucky to stay under 3C. At least in the US, the politicians in one party just talks about it and does a little bit to try and avoid it. And when it looks like Oil prices will hurt their re-election chances, starts doing all it can to get oil prices down. The other party ignores it completely and sticks their head in the sand. The end result, good luck to the young :( In the US, for climate change only, it does not matter who gets elected. One party may slow the race to 4C down, the other party it is "5C here we come while driving our hummers into the sunset".

squigz 2y ago

I pretty thoroughly disagree with the premise of this, but I'm not sure why it was dead. Vouched.