2 ms·
>The solution is to generate energy without emitting CO2. These take time and emit CO2 themselves at least in the bulding phase. And LLMs like GPT won't help
by croes 2y ago
>The solution is to generate energy without emitting CO2.
These take time and emit CO2 themselves at least in the bulding phase.
And LLMs like GPT won't help us fighting climate change so we raise our energy consumption without later benefit on that matter.
Maybe we first should buld the energy sources and then use them for convenience tools.
Or do you want to explain our children we fucked up because we "needed" AI to write emails that are read by AI to generate a response? Much of AIs use is still just for unnecessary things just more convenient. It's still unclear if they have a productivity benefit or just changed the way we spend the same amount of time.
Intel's study found no such benefit and suggests teaching the people how to use LLMs means how to tell the machine what it should do.
Sounds like programming with extra steps and more ambiguity.
- XorNot 2y agoNo matter how you slice it though, not building LLMs doesn't change the underlying equation: you're emitting CO2 to make electricity. Every new human being born once they turn on electric light is. Every new industry. Every bit of economic growth, basically. Any action which isn't the reduction of CO2 to generate electricity, or elimination, is just a delaying tactic. Even substantial population reduction would buy you what, maybe a few hundred years before atmospheric CO2 hits the same levels again? There is exactly one problem to solve with anthropogenic climate change and it's CO2 emissions. Any action which isn't directly attacking that issue is a waste of time and political resources, and demonstrably*has been a complete waste of time and effort - every victory was won on the back of superior technology (i.e. efficiency didn't just happen - LEDs happened and they're just plain better and cheaper).