3 ms·

The brain uses 20% of the human body's energy. I wouldn't be surprised if mankind will evolve similar to an organism and use 20% of all energy it produces on A

by mg 1y ago

The brain uses 20% of the human body's energy. I wouldn't be surprised if mankind will evolve similar to an organism and use 20% of all energy it produces on AI. Which is about 10x of what we use for software at the moment. But then more AI also means more physical activity. When robots drive cars, we will have more cars driving around. When robots build houses, we will have more houses being built, etc. So energy usage will probably go up exponentially. At the moment, the sun sends more energy to earth in an hour than humans use in a year. So the sun alone will be able to power this for the foreseeable future.

amelius 1y ago
One problem: all this energy is eventually turned into heat ...
- mg 1y ago
  Most of the sunlight that hits a roof is already turned into heat. Whether you use that for calculations or not does not make a difference. Not sure about the exact numbers, but I guess that at the moment normal roofs and solar panels absorb very roughly about the same percentage of sunlight. So if in the future solar panels become more efficient, then yes, the amount of sunlight turned into heat could double. Maybe that can be offset by covering other parts of earth with reflective materials or finding a way to send the heat back into the universe more effectively.
  - amelius 1y ago
    What if you put a solar farm in a desert, though? And also, people should paint their roofs white.
    - carunenjoyerlp 1y ago
      >And also, people should paint their roofs white. Some could, but a dark roof can be beneficial in the winter
vmg12 1y ago
> When robots drive cars, we will have more cars driving around This doesn't seem true. In SF, waymo with 300 cars does more rides than lyft with 45k drivers. If self driving cars interleave different tasks based on their routes I imagine they would be much more efficient per mile.
- mg 1y ago
  Existing rides will be done more efficiently but since rides are so much cheaper without a driver, much more rides will be done. A car driving from A to B will cost less than 50% of the current price. Which will unlock a huge amount of new rides.
- 0_____0 1y ago
  Is it really only 300 cars? They feel like they're everywhere!
  - simonw 1y ago
    I thought it was more than that too, but according to https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/alphabet-says-waymo-may-offer-robotaxis-personal-ownership-future-2025-04-25/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/alphab... > With more than 700 vehicles in its fleet - 300 of which operate in San Francisco - Waymo is the only U.S. firm that runs uncrewed robotaxis that collect fares. Those numbers are from April 2025.
    - floxy 1y ago
      >We’ve also incrementally grown our commercial fleet as we’ve welcomed more riders, with over 1,500 vehicles across San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Austin. https://waymo.com/blog/2025/05/scaling-our-fleet-through-us-manufacturing https://waymo.com/blog/2025/05/scaling-our-fleet-through-us-...
- asdff 1y ago
  If waymo is doing more rides with 300 cars than 45k drivers on lyft, we can assume then that waymo cars are on the road serving customers at least 150x as long of time as a lyft driver. So yes it could really mean more cars are "around" even if the fleet is much smaller.
HelloUsername 1y ago
> energy usage will probably go up exponentially kindof sounds like Jevons paradox? https://wiki.froth.zone/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://wiki.froth.zone/wiki/Jevons_paradox
briandear 1y ago
Why not nuclear?
- mg 1y ago
  Building and running a nuclear reactor involves a lot of physical activity. And if the past is an indicator, we always move from physical activity to the flow of electrons. The discussion about nuclear vs solar remind me of the discussions about spinning HDs versus solid state drives when they were new.
  - carunenjoyerlp 1y ago
    HDDs build the backbone of all large storage systems, they serve many purposes today. Magnetic tape is still in use too
- natmaka 1y ago
  Because a mix of renewables deployed on a continent (most grids tend nowadays to extend on whole continents because it enhances continuity of service while offering many ways to optimize for emissions, costs...) is better (cheaper, less dependency towards any fuel, less risk related to accidents/neglects/mistakes/war/terrorism/hot waste/... ...). GAFAM nuclear are mere announcements, intentions. On the other front most already progress. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/microsoft-qcells-strike-massive-supply-deal-us-made-solar-panels-2024-01-08/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/micros... https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/microsoft-qcells-strike-massive-supply-deal-us-made-solar-panels-2024-01-08/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/micros...
Scarblac 1y ago
But the article says that energy use by AI is 48% more carbon intensive than the US average. So talk of solar power is a red herring -- that's not what it is running on now.
- mg 1y ago
  I am thinking about the future here. I don't think there will be much carbon intensive energy creation in a few decades from now. It does not make sense economically.
  - Scarblac 1y ago
    You said "for the foreseeable future", which I interpret as being about now. Anyway I hope you're right, but so far global CO2 output is still growing. All the other energy has only come on top of carbon intensive energy, it hasn't replaced any of it. Every time we build more, we find new ways of spending that much energy and more.
    - mg 1y ago
      Seeing 20 years into the future is quite possible in some aspects. I remember how me and my friends discovered email in 1999 and were like "Yay, in the future we'll all do this instead of sending letters!". And it took about 20 years until letters were largely replaced by email and the web. And when the first videos appeared on the web, it was quite clear to us that they would replace DVDs. Similar with the advent of self driving cars and solar energy I think.
- newtonsmethod 1y ago
  The energy use by AI probably is just as, if not more, carbon intensive, but the article never says that. It talks about the energy use of the general data center. > The carbon intensity of electricity used by data centers was 48% higher than the US average.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
asdff 1y ago
This assumes no technological adaptions towards efficiency. Consider yourself walking a mile and the energy expenditure. It isn't insignificant. Now imagine you have a bicycle. Some bicyclists will train and do century rides, a distance that were never possible merely walking for a day. But these are few bikers overall, most will not maximize capability to that extent but will still be taking advantage of the efficiency of the bike.
HPsquared 1y ago
First-order effect is that quality of life will improve though as a result of all that work being done. People able to live more comfortably, relax more etc. The main complaint about energy usage is it will damage the environment, which will (indirectly) reduce quality of life. It's a question of which factor wins.

by mg 1y ago

amelius 1y ago

One problem: all this energy is eventually turned into heat ...

mg 1y ago
Most of the sunlight that hits a roof is already turned into heat. Whether you use that for calculations or not does not make a difference. Not sure about the exact numbers, but I guess that at the moment normal roofs and solar panels absorb very roughly about the same percentage of sunlight. So if in the future solar panels become more efficient, then yes, the amount of sunlight turned into heat could double. Maybe that can be offset by covering other parts of earth with reflective materials or finding a way to send the heat back into the universe more effectively.
- amelius 1y ago
  What if you put a solar farm in a desert, though? And also, people should paint their roofs white.
  - carunenjoyerlp 1y ago
    >And also, people should paint their roofs white. Some could, but a dark roof can be beneficial in the winter

vmg12 1y ago

> When robots drive cars, we will have more cars driving around This doesn't seem true. In SF, waymo with 300 cars does more rides than lyft with 45k drivers. If self driving cars interleave different tasks based on their routes I imagine they would be much more efficient per mile.

mg 1y ago
Existing rides will be done more efficiently but since rides are so much cheaper without a driver, much more rides will be done. A car driving from A to B will cost less than 50% of the current price. Which will unlock a huge amount of new rides.
0_____0 1y ago
Is it really only 300 cars? They feel like they're everywhere!
- simonw 1y ago
  I thought it was more than that too, but according to https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/alphabet-says-waymo-may-offer-robotaxis-personal-ownership-future-2025-04-25/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/alphab... > With more than 700 vehicles in its fleet - 300 of which operate in San Francisco - Waymo is the only U.S. firm that runs uncrewed robotaxis that collect fares. Those numbers are from April 2025.
  - floxy 1y ago
    >We’ve also incrementally grown our commercial fleet as we’ve welcomed more riders, with over 1,500 vehicles across San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Austin. https://waymo.com/blog/2025/05/scaling-our-fleet-through-us-manufacturing https://waymo.com/blog/2025/05/scaling-our-fleet-through-us-...
asdff 1y ago
If waymo is doing more rides with 300 cars than 45k drivers on lyft, we can assume then that waymo cars are on the road serving customers at least 150x as long of time as a lyft driver. So yes it could really mean more cars are "around" even if the fleet is much smaller.

HelloUsername 1y ago

> energy usage will probably go up exponentially kindof sounds like Jevons paradox? https://wiki.froth.zone/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://wiki.froth.zone/wiki/Jevons_paradox

briandear 1y ago

Why not nuclear?

mg 1y ago
Building and running a nuclear reactor involves a lot of physical activity. And if the past is an indicator, we always move from physical activity to the flow of electrons. The discussion about nuclear vs solar remind me of the discussions about spinning HDs versus solid state drives when they were new.
- carunenjoyerlp 1y ago
  HDDs build the backbone of all large storage systems, they serve many purposes today. Magnetic tape is still in use too
natmaka 1y ago
Because a mix of renewables deployed on a continent (most grids tend nowadays to extend on whole continents because it enhances continuity of service while offering many ways to optimize for emissions, costs...) is better (cheaper, less dependency towards any fuel, less risk related to accidents/neglects/mistakes/war/terrorism/hot waste/... ...). GAFAM nuclear are mere announcements, intentions. On the other front most already progress. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/microsoft-qcells-strike-massive-supply-deal-us-made-solar-panels-2024-01-08/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/micros... https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/microsoft-qcells-strike-massive-supply-deal-us-made-solar-panels-2024-01-08/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/micros...

Scarblac 1y ago

But the article says that energy use by AI is 48% more carbon intensive than the US average. So talk of solar power is a red herring -- that's not what it is running on now.

mg 1y ago
I am thinking about the future here. I don't think there will be much carbon intensive energy creation in a few decades from now. It does not make sense economically.
- Scarblac 1y ago
  You said "for the foreseeable future", which I interpret as being about now. Anyway I hope you're right, but so far global CO2 output is still growing. All the other energy has only come on top of carbon intensive energy, it hasn't replaced any of it. Every time we build more, we find new ways of spending that much energy and more.
  - mg 1y ago
    Seeing 20 years into the future is quite possible in some aspects. I remember how me and my friends discovered email in 1999 and were like "Yay, in the future we'll all do this instead of sending letters!". And it took about 20 years until letters were largely replaced by email and the web. And when the first videos appeared on the web, it was quite clear to us that they would replace DVDs. Similar with the advent of self driving cars and solar energy I think.
newtonsmethod 1y ago
The energy use by AI probably is just as, if not more, carbon intensive, but the article never says that. It talks about the energy use of the general data center. > The carbon intensity of electricity used by data centers was 48% higher than the US average.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago

asdff 1y ago

This assumes no technological adaptions towards efficiency. Consider yourself walking a mile and the energy expenditure. It isn't insignificant. Now imagine you have a bicycle. Some bicyclists will train and do century rides, a distance that were never possible merely walking for a day. But these are few bikers overall, most will not maximize capability to that extent but will still be taking advantage of the efficiency of the bike.

HPsquared 1y ago

First-order effect is that quality of life will improve though as a result of all that work being done. People able to live more comfortably, relax more etc. The main complaint about energy usage is it will damage the environment, which will (indirectly) reduce quality of life. It's a question of which factor wins.