5 ms·

[flagged]

v3xro 1y ago
Yes pretty much spot on. And if he thinks that > they’re smarter than me. And when they get over this affectation, they’re going to make coding agents profoundly more effective than they are today. Then I really hope he's in for a surprise.
Ragnarork 1y ago
It's interesting also how these takes consistently ignore spectacularly the environmental cost of these as well. I'm a bit on the fence myself, as I think it's very harmful, but I can also see ways it can be useful. But it's absolutely mindblowing how this is nearly always completely out of the discussion even though our current way of living and powering things is on a timer and we still haven't addressed it as a whole.
- GardenLetter27 1y ago
  What environmental cost? The uranium is going to decay on its own anyway, we might as well use that energy for useful things. Maybe LLMs will help lead to a breakthrough in nuclear fusion or battery research. Degrowth is the philosophy of poverty, and a poverty of philosophy.
  - rel_ic 1y ago
    This mindset is cancerous
  - timdiggerm 1y ago
    Degrowth and "Maybe this uses too much electricity" are not the same thing, particularly when a nontrivial portion of US generation is fossil-fuel based. As for the breakthroughs, maybe they will, maybe they won't; it's not much of an argument.
  - GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
    endless growth is the philosophy of an economic system that does not regard the long-term health of the planet and its flora and fauna. what's your point?
    - computerthings 1y ago
      [dead]
- rel_ic 1y ago
  Thanks for posting this! I was also flabbergasted and it's nice to see at least one mention of the huge environmental impact!
- jes5199 1y ago
  the “environmental costs” argument is based upon like fifteen false assumptions. by 2030, AI will be running almost entirely on solar+wind+battery, because that is by far the cheapest option
  - Nullabillity 1y ago
    > by 2030, AI will be running almost entirely on solar+wind+battery Bullshit. Even if this was true (and so far that doesn't seem to be the case), that's not how commodities work. You can't just measure how much your thing uses, because even if it was running purely on green energy you also have to keep in mind other consumers that end up displaced onto worse sources. The only fair way to measure this is by the worst generator on your grid, because that's who would be shut down w/o your demand. And even if we assume that the entire grid was green, building out that capacity also has (environmental) costs! As does producing those GPUs, for that matter.
    - jes5199 1y ago
      there will be _less_ fossil fuel use, globally, in 2030 than there is today, and AI will not be a significant reason that changes in either direction.
    - throwaway29812 1y ago
      [dead]
- slashdev 1y ago
  Do you know what the environmental footprint of a software developer is? I’m only half joking.
- wvenable 1y ago
  What's the environmental cost a human doing the same thing?
  - throwaway29812 1y ago
    [dead]
hlpn 1y ago
Rage bait and little more.
rfrey 1y ago
your opinion on that sidebar issue. I for one am glad not everybody writes their op-eds while cosplaying as an HR-drone writing press releases.
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  False dichotomy. One can at the same time write not as an HR drone, and also not as an aggressive jerk.
dang 1y ago
Could you please stop breaking the site guidelines, as you did here and in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44167429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44167429? If you keep posting like that we're going to have to ban you again. I don't want to do that, but we can't have commenters abusing HN like this. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. Note these, for example: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." "Please don't fulminate." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- GenshoTikamura 1y ago
  [flagged]

[flagged]

Yes pretty much spot on. And if he thinks that > they’re smarter than me. And when they get over this affectation, they’re going to make coding agents profoundly more effective than they are today. Then I really hope he's in for a surprise.

Ragnarork 1y ago

It's interesting also how these takes consistently ignore spectacularly the environmental cost of these as well. I'm a bit on the fence myself, as I think it's very harmful, but I can also see ways it can be useful. But it's absolutely mindblowing how this is nearly always completely out of the discussion even though our current way of living and powering things is on a timer and we still haven't addressed it as a whole.

GardenLetter27 1y ago
What environmental cost? The uranium is going to decay on its own anyway, we might as well use that energy for useful things. Maybe LLMs will help lead to a breakthrough in nuclear fusion or battery research. Degrowth is the philosophy of poverty, and a poverty of philosophy.
- rel_ic 1y ago
  This mindset is cancerous
- timdiggerm 1y ago
  Degrowth and "Maybe this uses too much electricity" are not the same thing, particularly when a nontrivial portion of US generation is fossil-fuel based. As for the breakthroughs, maybe they will, maybe they won't; it's not much of an argument.
- GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
  endless growth is the philosophy of an economic system that does not regard the long-term health of the planet and its flora and fauna. what's your point?
  - computerthings 1y ago
    [dead]
rel_ic 1y ago
Thanks for posting this! I was also flabbergasted and it's nice to see at least one mention of the huge environmental impact!
jes5199 1y ago
the “environmental costs” argument is based upon like fifteen false assumptions. by 2030, AI will be running almost entirely on solar+wind+battery, because that is by far the cheapest option
- Nullabillity 1y ago
  > by 2030, AI will be running almost entirely on solar+wind+battery Bullshit. Even if this was true (and so far that doesn't seem to be the case), that's not how commodities work. You can't just measure how much your thing uses, because even if it was running purely on green energy you also have to keep in mind other consumers that end up displaced onto worse sources. The only fair way to measure this is by the worst generator on your grid, because that's who would be shut down w/o your demand. And even if we assume that the entire grid was green, building out that capacity also has (environmental) costs! As does producing those GPUs, for that matter.
  - jes5199 1y ago
    there will be _less_ fossil fuel use, globally, in 2030 than there is today, and AI will not be a significant reason that changes in either direction.
  - throwaway29812 1y ago
    [dead]
slashdev 1y ago
Do you know what the environmental footprint of a software developer is? I’m only half joking.
wvenable 1y ago
What's the environmental cost a human doing the same thing?
- throwaway29812 1y ago
  [dead]

hlpn 1y ago

Rage bait and little more.

rfrey 1y ago

your opinion on that sidebar issue. I for one am glad not everybody writes their op-eds while cosplaying as an HR-drone writing press releases.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
False dichotomy. One can at the same time write not as an HR drone, and also not as an aggressive jerk.

dang 1y ago

Could you please stop breaking the site guidelines, as you did here and in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44167429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44167429? If you keep posting like that we're going to have to ban you again. I don't want to do that, but we can't have commenters abusing HN like this. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. Note these, for example: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." "Please don't fulminate." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

GenshoTikamura 1y ago
[flagged]