4 ms·
If you're looking at it simply from a resource standpoint, we should ask what those humans would be doing otherwise. I'm assuming that powering them down isn't
by CoastalCoder 2y ago
If you're looking at it simply from a resource standpoint, we should ask what those humans would be doing otherwise.
I'm assuming that powering them down isn't a viable option, unlike with GPUs in a datacenter.
- throwaway0123_5 2y ago> I'm assuming that powering them down isn't a viable option Sadly that might be assuming too much... here and on reddit I've seen a handful of people who have said that we should continue with AI progress even if it causes the extinction of humans, because we'll have ~"contributed to spreading intelligence throughout the universe and it doesn't really matter if it is human or not." With that as the extreme end of the spectrum, I suspect the group of people who simply aren't considering what happens to obsoleted humans is much larger, and corporations certainly haven't demonstrated much interest in caring for those who technology has obsoleted in the past. Tbh it is really disheartening to see so many technologists who seemingly only care about technology for its own sake.
- eru 2y agoYes, opportunity costs are important. Presumably the humans would be enjoying with some other activity. Eg they could be working on carbon capturing projects? Or producing electric power via pedaling, etc. I don't know. I was purely talking about the environmental impact of this one activity.