4 ms·

> Is it terrible for the environment? > I don’t know. After the model has been created (trained), I’m pretty sure that generating embeddings is much less compu

> Is it terrible for the environment? > I don’t know. After the model has been created (trained), I’m pretty sure that generating embeddings is much less computationally intensive than generating text. But it also seems to be the case that embedding models are trained in similar ways as text generation models2, with all the energy usage that implies. I’ll update this section when I find out more. Although I do care about the environment, this question is completely the wrong one if you ask me. There is the public opinion (mainstream media?) some kind of idea that we should use less AI and somehow this would solve our climate problems. As a counterexample, let's go to the extreme. Let's ban Google Maps because it does take computational resources from the phone. As a result more people will take wrong routes, and thus use more petrol. Say you use one gallon of petrol extra, that then wastes 34 kWh. This is of course the equivalent of running 34 powerful vacuum cleaners on full power for an hour. In contrast, say you downloaded your map, then the total "cost" is only the power used by the phone. A mobile phone has a battery of about 4 mAh, so 0,004 Ah * 4.2 V = 0.168 W, or 0.000168 kW. This means that the phone is about 200 000 times as efficient! And then we didn't even consider the time-saving for the human. It's the same with running embeddings for doc generation. An Nvidia H100 consumes about 700 W, so say 1 kWh after an hour of running. 1 kWh should be enough to do a bunch of embedding runs. If this then saves, for example, one workday including the driving back and forth to the office, then again the tradeoff is highly in favor of the compute.

archerx 2y ago
If people really cared about the environment then they would ban residential air conditioning, it’s a luxury. I lived somewhere that would get to 40c in the summers and an oscillating fan was good enough to keep cool, the AC was nice to have but it wasn’t necessary. I find it very hypocritical when people tell you to change your lifestyle for climate change but they have the A/C blasting all day long, everyday.
- wussboy 2y ago
  “Reduce” was never going to work. Only the deep electrification of our economy will save us.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    Indeed, and A/C is kind of a prime example of why it's beneficial, given how much more energy-efficient heat pumps are for cooling and heating than just about anything else.
- ausbah 2y ago
  in a somewhat ironic twist, ac is crucial survival infrastructure in some parts of the world when heat comes during hot seasons. phoenix usa, parts of india, etc
  - archerx 2y ago
    AC is never crucial, you just want to be comfortable at the expense or th plane. How did people live there for centries before AC? Magic?
    - immibis 2y ago
      By not working when it's too hot to work, or by simply not living there, both of which are strictly verboten solutions in hypercapitalism.
- coredog64 2y ago
  Prepare to have your mind blown: Heat pumps are very energy efficient at moving heat around. Significantly more so than the oil-fired boiler frequently found in the basement of a big-city apartment building.
- BeetleB 2y ago
  > I lived somewhere that would get to 40c in the summers and an oscillating fan was good enough to keep cool If it's not too humid. I've lived in places with relatively high humidity and 35-40C, and have had the misfortune of not having an AC. Fans are not enough. I mean, sure, you can survive, but it really, really sucks.
- petesergeant 2y ago
  > that would get to 40c in the summers and an oscillating fan was good enough to keep cool This is entirely meaningless without providing the humidity. At higher than 70% relative humidity 40C is potentially fatal.
  - archerx 2y ago
    It was pretty humid too, a fan was ok. Americans are just very weak and are babies when it comes to temperature.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > I lived somewhere that would get to 40c in the summers and an oscillating fan was good enough to keep cool, the AC was nice to have but it wasn’t necessary. As others have said, that works if you lived in a very dry area. And perhaps it was a house or a building optimized for airflow. And you didn't have much to do during the day. And I'm guessing you're young, and healthy. Here in central Europe, sustained 40°C in the summer would rack up a significant body count. Anything above 30°C sucks really bad if you have any work to do. Or if, say, you're pregnant or have small children. And you live in a city. Residential A/C isn't a luxury anymore, it's becoming a necessity very fast. Fortunately, heat pumps are one of the most efficient inventions of humankind. In particular, "A/C blasting all day long" beats anything else you could do to mitigate the heat if it involved getting into a car. And then it also beats whatever else you're doing to heat your place during the winter.
dleeftink 2y ago
Long-term, its not about barring progress, but to have progress and more energy efficient models. The sum-games we play in regard to energy usage, don't necessarily stack up in dynamic systems; the increased energy usage of generative models may very well lead to less compute hours spent behind the desk drafting, revising, redrafting and doing it all over again once the next project comes around. What remains though, is that increased productivity has rarely lead to a decrease in energy usage. Whether energy scarcity will drive model optimisation is anyone's guess, but it would be a differentiating feature on a market saturated with similarly capable offerings.

archerx 2y ago

If people really cared about the environment then they would ban residential air conditioning, it’s a luxury. I lived somewhere that would get to 40c in the summers and an oscillating fan was good enough to keep cool, the AC was nice to have but it wasn’t necessary. I find it very hypocritical when people tell you to change your lifestyle for climate change but they have the A/C blasting all day long, everyday.

wussboy 2y ago
“Reduce” was never going to work. Only the deep electrification of our economy will save us.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Indeed, and A/C is kind of a prime example of why it's beneficial, given how much more energy-efficient heat pumps are for cooling and heating than just about anything else.
ausbah 2y ago
in a somewhat ironic twist, ac is crucial survival infrastructure in some parts of the world when heat comes during hot seasons. phoenix usa, parts of india, etc
- archerx 2y ago
  AC is never crucial, you just want to be comfortable at the expense or th plane. How did people live there for centries before AC? Magic?
  - immibis 2y ago
    By not working when it's too hot to work, or by simply not living there, both of which are strictly verboten solutions in hypercapitalism.
coredog64 2y ago
Prepare to have your mind blown: Heat pumps are very energy efficient at moving heat around. Significantly more so than the oil-fired boiler frequently found in the basement of a big-city apartment building.
BeetleB 2y ago
> I lived somewhere that would get to 40c in the summers and an oscillating fan was good enough to keep cool If it's not too humid. I've lived in places with relatively high humidity and 35-40C, and have had the misfortune of not having an AC. Fans are not enough. I mean, sure, you can survive, but it really, really sucks.
petesergeant 2y ago
> that would get to 40c in the summers and an oscillating fan was good enough to keep cool This is entirely meaningless without providing the humidity. At higher than 70% relative humidity 40C is potentially fatal.
- archerx 2y ago
  It was pretty humid too, a fan was ok. Americans are just very weak and are babies when it comes to temperature.
TeMPOraL 2y ago
> I lived somewhere that would get to 40c in the summers and an oscillating fan was good enough to keep cool, the AC was nice to have but it wasn’t necessary. As others have said, that works if you lived in a very dry area. And perhaps it was a house or a building optimized for airflow. And you didn't have much to do during the day. And I'm guessing you're young, and healthy. Here in central Europe, sustained 40°C in the summer would rack up a significant body count. Anything above 30°C sucks really bad if you have any work to do. Or if, say, you're pregnant or have small children. And you live in a city. Residential A/C isn't a luxury anymore, it's becoming a necessity very fast. Fortunately, heat pumps are one of the most efficient inventions of humankind. In particular, "A/C blasting all day long" beats anything else you could do to mitigate the heat if it involved getting into a car. And then it also beats whatever else you're doing to heat your place during the winter.

dleeftink 2y ago

Long-term, its not about barring progress, but to have progress and more energy efficient models. The sum-games we play in regard to energy usage, don't necessarily stack up in dynamic systems; the increased energy usage of generative models may very well lead to less compute hours spent behind the desk drafting, revising, redrafting and doing it all over again once the next project comes around. What remains though, is that increased productivity has rarely lead to a decrease in energy usage. Whether energy scarcity will drive model optimisation is anyone's guess, but it would be a differentiating feature on a market saturated with similarly capable offerings.