4 ms·

In the example you compare something with 20 million daily users to the energy usage of 25.000 homes. I feel like comparisons like this mostly work (and feel sc

In the example you compare something with 20 million daily users to the energy usage of 25.000 homes. I feel like comparisons like this mostly work (and feel scary) because we don't really grasp how much bigger 20 million really is. It feels a bit like scaremongering to me (without providing context of AI energy use vs other online activities/services). Anyhow, another perspective is given here: https://andymasley.substack.com/p/individual-ai-use-is-not-bad-for https://andymasley.substack.com/p/individual-ai-use-is-not-b... This piece aligns more with my view on AI and its energy usage.

strogonoff 2y ago
This is a great point regarding what we ought to consider when adapting our lifestyle to reduce negative environmental impact: > In deciding what to cut, we need to factor in both how much an activity is emitting and how useful and beneficial the activity is to our lives. Although I would extend “our lives” to “society”. His own example with a hospital emitting more than a cruise ship is a good illustration of this; and as a more absurd example it would drastically cut the emissions if we remove all humans and replace them by LLMs (which sort of defeats the entire point, obviously, because LLMs are no longer needed). Continuing this line of thought, when considering your use of an LLM, you ought to weigh not merely its emissions and water usage, but also the larger picture as to how it benefits the human society. For example: Is it based on ethically sound approaches? (If it is more like “ends justify the means”, do we even know what those ends are?) What are its the foreseeable long-term effects on human flourishing? Will it (unless regulated) cause a detriment to livelihoods of the many people while increasing the wealth gap with the tech elites? Does it negatively impact open information sharing (willingness to run self-hosted original content websites or communities open to public, or even the feasibility of doing so[0][1]), motivation and capability to learn, creativity? And so forth. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42486481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42486481 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42549624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42549624
- brtkdotse 2y ago
  > more like “ends justify the means at any cost” Everyone is crystal clear on this, the goal is to replace expensive humans to increase profits.
  - entropi 2y ago
    Exactly. The whole goal is to remove the "skill premium" from the labor markets, as far as I can tell. So I would argue that this whole thing is a net negative. We are spending tons of energy for net negative gains.
    - visarga 2y ago
      Maybe it's a negative for you if you already have marketable skills, but a positive for others who want to get in.
      - strogonoff 2y ago
        > Maybe it's a negative for you if you already have marketable skills, but a positive for others who want to get in. I am not fully clear, to get in on what? The skill that is valued less and less? Or on being an LLM prompter? How much would a rational management be willing to pay a prompt writer (assuming they cannot automate that as well in the first place)?
      - entropi 2y ago
        Yeah but if there is no requirement/barrier of entry to do a job; it becomes, pretty much by definition, a minimum wage job. Is this the great future the AI promises? Almost everyone working for minimum wage while a few tech oligarch rules over all?
  - paul_e_warner 2y ago
    ...how do you think you got your job? You ever see those old movies with rows of people with calculators manually balancing spreadsheets with pen and paper? We are the automators. We replaced thousands of formerly good paying jobs with computers to increase profits, just like replacing horses with cars or blacksmiths with factories. The reality of AI, if AI succeeds in replacing programmers (and there's reason to be skeptical of that) is that it will simply be a "move up the value chain". Former programmers instead of developing highly technical skills will have new skills - either helping to make models that meet new goals or guiding those models to produce things that meet requirements. It will not mean all programmers are automatically unemployable - but we will need to change.
- Tarsul 2y ago
  yeah but we don't have time to analyse this for years and years while upping our power consumption. In the end we consume too much dirty power and have to change this, and quickly. AI is worth nothing if the world is burning.
  - mrmanner 2y ago
    > yeah but we don't have time to analyse this for years and years while upping our power consumption this is 100 % true. we also don’t have time to debate the morality and necessity of each specific activity for years. if AI energy use is indeed as small as some comments here suggest, ignoring it to focus on improving things like heating, cooling, and transportation could be a better course of action.

strogonoff 2y ago

This is a great point regarding what we ought to consider when adapting our lifestyle to reduce negative environmental impact: > In deciding what to cut, we need to factor in both how much an activity is emitting and how useful and beneficial the activity is to our lives. Although I would extend “our lives” to “society”. His own example with a hospital emitting more than a cruise ship is a good illustration of this; and as a more absurd example it would drastically cut the emissions if we remove all humans and replace them by LLMs (which sort of defeats the entire point, obviously, because LLMs are no longer needed). Continuing this line of thought, when considering your use of an LLM, you ought to weigh not merely its emissions and water usage, but also the larger picture as to how it benefits the human society. For example: Is it based on ethically sound approaches? (If it is more like “ends justify the means”, do we even know what those ends are?) What are its the foreseeable long-term effects on human flourishing? Will it (unless regulated) cause a detriment to livelihoods of the many people while increasing the wealth gap with the tech elites? Does it negatively impact open information sharing (willingness to run self-hosted original content websites or communities open to public, or even the feasibility of doing so[0][1]), motivation and capability to learn, creativity? And so forth. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42486481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42486481 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42549624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42549624

brtkdotse 2y ago
> more like “ends justify the means at any cost” Everyone is crystal clear on this, the goal is to replace expensive humans to increase profits.
- entropi 2y ago
  Exactly. The whole goal is to remove the "skill premium" from the labor markets, as far as I can tell. So I would argue that this whole thing is a net negative. We are spending tons of energy for net negative gains.
  - visarga 2y ago
    Maybe it's a negative for you if you already have marketable skills, but a positive for others who want to get in.
    - strogonoff 2y ago
      > Maybe it's a negative for you if you already have marketable skills, but a positive for others who want to get in. I am not fully clear, to get in on what? The skill that is valued less and less? Or on being an LLM prompter? How much would a rational management be willing to pay a prompt writer (assuming they cannot automate that as well in the first place)?
    - entropi 2y ago
      Yeah but if there is no requirement/barrier of entry to do a job; it becomes, pretty much by definition, a minimum wage job. Is this the great future the AI promises? Almost everyone working for minimum wage while a few tech oligarch rules over all?
- paul_e_warner 2y ago
  ...how do you think you got your job? You ever see those old movies with rows of people with calculators manually balancing spreadsheets with pen and paper? We are the automators. We replaced thousands of formerly good paying jobs with computers to increase profits, just like replacing horses with cars or blacksmiths with factories. The reality of AI, if AI succeeds in replacing programmers (and there's reason to be skeptical of that) is that it will simply be a "move up the value chain". Former programmers instead of developing highly technical skills will have new skills - either helping to make models that meet new goals or guiding those models to produce things that meet requirements. It will not mean all programmers are automatically unemployable - but we will need to change.
Tarsul 2y ago
yeah but we don't have time to analyse this for years and years while upping our power consumption. In the end we consume too much dirty power and have to change this, and quickly. AI is worth nothing if the world is burning.
- mrmanner 2y ago
  > yeah but we don't have time to analyse this for years and years while upping our power consumption this is 100 % true. we also don’t have time to debate the morality and necessity of each specific activity for years. if AI energy use is indeed as small as some comments here suggest, ignoring it to focus on improving things like heating, cooling, and transportation could be a better course of action.