4 ms·

Is it not still better to just avoid using all this energy though? Do we really need to have these LLM tools everywhere? And more importantly, when do we stop

Is it not still better to just avoid using all this energy though? Do we really need to have these LLM tools everywhere? And more importantly, when do we stop justifying the use of one finite resource by pointing to all the other ways we could reduce use but don't? Just because people waste a bunch of energy, water, wood, etc doesn't justify using it however you want, at least in my opinion.

bongodongobob 2y ago
I'll give a shit about AI energy usage when a huge swath of the population isn't needlessly forced to drive to work every day.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  And that's why we'll never solve any meaningful societal issues. If you can use less energy, or water, or plastic, or time, just do it. Who the hell cares what everyone else chooses to do?
  - bongodongobob 2y ago
    I already am. I'm not concerned about a 0.001% increase of my footprint. There are bigger fish to fry. This is fear mongering.
    - Spivak 2y ago
      Yeah, the real point is that "AI uses a lot of energy: here's why you should be concerned" is just a post-hoc justification for someone who doesn't like AI and needs something to point to.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        Agreed, that's not a useful argument when its posed that way. That is only one way of seeing it though. The question, in my opinion, isn't whether LLMs are a huge energy suck and we should be worked. My question is whether its really needed at all, regardless of how much energy it may or may not use relative to other things. People's needs really are pretty simple at the end of the day. Food, water, shelter, (the feeling of) safety, community. We just aren't good at defining enough and some people are very good at convincing us that we don't need to even consider that concept.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      I don't think I was fear mongering here, not sure if that was referencing someone else. I also wasn't just talking about LLM energy use here. I agree most people's footprint from LLM use is extremely low relative to what else they do. There is likely lower hanging fruit, though you also must agree that doesn't mean we might as well use a little bit more just because its a small amount. Maybe cutting LLM use out of your equation is small, but do you really need it? I'd assume not, I'd also assume there are larger items you could cut if you really looked and it wouldn't hurt your day to day life at all. That said, I don't know you at all so I could very well be wrong on the specific case. I would stand behind the argument broadly though, most people could remove a lot of use from their lives and may even find themselves happier for it.
zdragnar 2y ago
We don't "need" it any more than we need endless streams of cat videos and fake personalities on tiktok. Some people get more utility out of one over the other. Some would argue that we would all be better off without those other things and keeping AI instead. That subjective interpretation of marginal utility and where valuable becomes wasteful for any particular action is both the reason and the answer for your questions.
Dalewyn 2y ago
>Is it not still better to just avoid using all this energy though? No, especially if there are ulterior motives of mUh eViL IA!111!1!one! as alluded to by parent commenter. If people have problems with "AI" they should bring forth their concerns frankly on their merits, not coat it with tHiNk Of dA kIdZ! and appeal to emotions. >Just because people waste a bunch of energy, water, wood, etc doesn't justify using it however you want, Whoever "wastes" them is paying for them, generally speaking. If they really are concerned about the waste they'll stop of their own accord.
visarga 2y ago
AI doesn't simply use up our energy. It can also help reduce energy usage in many fields or improve energy generation. I would not be worried about energy when it comes to AI.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  > it can also help reduce energy usage in many fields or improve energy generation Do we have any examples of this happening yet? My understanding is that these are aspirational goals of what AI could be if it is one day able to model the world around us and reason through novel approaches to solving problems.
  - sodality2 2y ago
    ML models in smart thermostats learning your schedule to run HVAC more efficiently
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Are we now considering ML algorithms capable of running on an embedded device AI?
      - sodality2 2y ago
        Is there a minimum amount of transistors that must be consumed to be considered AI, and does this scale regularly with Moore's law? But yes, I do :) I consider something as basic as MNIST Digit detection to be AI, even if everyone else doesn't
        _heimdall 2y ago
        I don't think anyone has argues for defining AI by transistor count, at east I've never heard that take. Its based on capabilities and the question is always where does one draw the line. It seems odd to me for the line to be so low that a simple ML algorithm running on embedded hardware would count as AI. What does the term AI mean at that point, and what term would you propose we start using for systems that are approaching or exceeding human intelligence?
safety1st 2y ago
To me this line of questioning is perplexing, because the history of civilization and technological development is essentially a story of applying more energyin place of human work. We burned wood to cook food and unlock more calories from it. We replaced wagons and horses with cars, trucks and gasoline. We harnessed the sun and the atom and sent probes throughout our solar system to do research. We have always required more energy to advance civilization. Sure we should improve efficiency and sustainability, if we don't we may cause a calamity which could take out many of us as well as lot of other critters (though on a geological scale, it'll basically be meaningless). But if we start thinking that using more energy is inherently a bad thing that needs to oppose, civilization will regress.
- GuinansEyebrows 2y ago
  We (industrial societies) didn’t know for a long, long time that eventually, more energy usage (especially the type of energy usage we practice) would impact the planet the way that it has. Now we have the choice to put more effort into finding better ways to use the energy we have and develop newer energy tech, but populist politics and entrenched energy interests actively work against that.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  The underlying problem, as I see it, that underlies these questions is whether we will ever learn what "enough" really means for ourselves. At some point people have to decide for themselves when they have enough and when they can just enjoy life as much as possible rather than chasing the next thing. I'm not proposing that its a clear line, or that the line is the same for everyone, or that the line should be decided by someone else and forced on you. My point is simply that we're screwed as a species if we continue to just want more and more of everything, especially convenience, regardless of the cost.
  - Ukv 2y ago
    May come down to philosophical differences - but I'd prefer humanity to continue progressing, curing diseases, learning about the Universe, improving quality of life, etc. as far as we can, as opposed to deciding at some point (or gradually) that we've had enough. Threshold for new advancements should not be whether we absolutely need it, but whether it does more good than harm - which I think is easily the case for LLMs and other machine learning models.

bongodongobob 2y ago

I'll give a shit about AI energy usage when a huge swath of the population isn't needlessly forced to drive to work every day.

_heimdall 2y ago
And that's why we'll never solve any meaningful societal issues. If you can use less energy, or water, or plastic, or time, just do it. Who the hell cares what everyone else chooses to do?
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  I already am. I'm not concerned about a 0.001% increase of my footprint. There are bigger fish to fry. This is fear mongering.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    Yeah, the real point is that "AI uses a lot of energy: here's why you should be concerned" is just a post-hoc justification for someone who doesn't like AI and needs something to point to.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Agreed, that's not a useful argument when its posed that way. That is only one way of seeing it though. The question, in my opinion, isn't whether LLMs are a huge energy suck and we should be worked. My question is whether its really needed at all, regardless of how much energy it may or may not use relative to other things. People's needs really are pretty simple at the end of the day. Food, water, shelter, (the feeling of) safety, community. We just aren't good at defining enough and some people are very good at convincing us that we don't need to even consider that concept.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    I don't think I was fear mongering here, not sure if that was referencing someone else. I also wasn't just talking about LLM energy use here. I agree most people's footprint from LLM use is extremely low relative to what else they do. There is likely lower hanging fruit, though you also must agree that doesn't mean we might as well use a little bit more just because its a small amount. Maybe cutting LLM use out of your equation is small, but do you really need it? I'd assume not, I'd also assume there are larger items you could cut if you really looked and it wouldn't hurt your day to day life at all. That said, I don't know you at all so I could very well be wrong on the specific case. I would stand behind the argument broadly though, most people could remove a lot of use from their lives and may even find themselves happier for it.

zdragnar 2y ago

We don't "need" it any more than we need endless streams of cat videos and fake personalities on tiktok. Some people get more utility out of one over the other. Some would argue that we would all be better off without those other things and keeping AI instead. That subjective interpretation of marginal utility and where valuable becomes wasteful for any particular action is both the reason and the answer for your questions.

Dalewyn 2y ago

>Is it not still better to just avoid using all this energy though? No, especially if there are ulterior motives of mUh eViL IA!111!1!one! as alluded to by parent commenter. If people have problems with "AI" they should bring forth their concerns frankly on their merits, not coat it with tHiNk Of dA kIdZ! and appeal to emotions. >Just because people waste a bunch of energy, water, wood, etc doesn't justify using it however you want, Whoever "wastes" them is paying for them, generally speaking. If they really are concerned about the waste they'll stop of their own accord.

visarga 2y ago

AI doesn't simply use up our energy. It can also help reduce energy usage in many fields or improve energy generation. I would not be worried about energy when it comes to AI.

_heimdall 2y ago
> it can also help reduce energy usage in many fields or improve energy generation Do we have any examples of this happening yet? My understanding is that these are aspirational goals of what AI could be if it is one day able to model the world around us and reason through novel approaches to solving problems.
- sodality2 2y ago
  ML models in smart thermostats learning your schedule to run HVAC more efficiently
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Are we now considering ML algorithms capable of running on an embedded device AI?
    - sodality2 2y ago
      Is there a minimum amount of transistors that must be consumed to be considered AI, and does this scale regularly with Moore's law? But yes, I do :) I consider something as basic as MNIST Digit detection to be AI, even if everyone else doesn't
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        I don't think anyone has argues for defining AI by transistor count, at east I've never heard that take. Its based on capabilities and the question is always where does one draw the line. It seems odd to me for the line to be so low that a simple ML algorithm running on embedded hardware would count as AI. What does the term AI mean at that point, and what term would you propose we start using for systems that are approaching or exceeding human intelligence?

safety1st 2y ago

To me this line of questioning is perplexing, because the history of civilization and technological development is essentially a story of applying more energyin place of human work. We burned wood to cook food and unlock more calories from it. We replaced wagons and horses with cars, trucks and gasoline. We harnessed the sun and the atom and sent probes throughout our solar system to do research. We have always required more energy to advance civilization. Sure we should improve efficiency and sustainability, if we don't we may cause a calamity which could take out many of us as well as lot of other critters (though on a geological scale, it'll basically be meaningless). But if we start thinking that using more energy is inherently a bad thing that needs to oppose, civilization will regress.

GuinansEyebrows 2y ago
We (industrial societies) didn’t know for a long, long time that eventually, more energy usage (especially the type of energy usage we practice) would impact the planet the way that it has. Now we have the choice to put more effort into finding better ways to use the energy we have and develop newer energy tech, but populist politics and entrenched energy interests actively work against that.
_heimdall 2y ago
The underlying problem, as I see it, that underlies these questions is whether we will ever learn what "enough" really means for ourselves. At some point people have to decide for themselves when they have enough and when they can just enjoy life as much as possible rather than chasing the next thing. I'm not proposing that its a clear line, or that the line is the same for everyone, or that the line should be decided by someone else and forced on you. My point is simply that we're screwed as a species if we continue to just want more and more of everything, especially convenience, regardless of the cost.
- Ukv 2y ago
  May come down to philosophical differences - but I'd prefer humanity to continue progressing, curing diseases, learning about the Universe, improving quality of life, etc. as far as we can, as opposed to deciding at some point (or gradually) that we've had enough. Threshold for new advancements should not be whether we absolutely need it, but whether it does more good than harm - which I think is easily the case for LLMs and other machine learning models.