4 ms·

Why AI? AI is a big productivity booster, better to just generate more nuclear and renewable power, and then use AI to improve things more (same argument for AC

Why AI? AI is a big productivity booster, better to just generate more nuclear and renewable power, and then use AI to improve things more (same argument for AC). Energy usage doesn't have to correspond to environmental damage much at all. This degrowth mindset is the whole problem with the EU. They focus on scarcity and cutbacks and regulation and bans, rather than addressing the underlying issues to spur on growth and innovation.

pjmlp 1y ago
Because of the water cooling and all forms of producing energy that it entails. It is like loving the planet eating soja, while ignoring the forests being destroyed to satisfy demand as planting fields. Or farmable fields now being solar panel fields, because it is more profitable to sell energy, than living the farmer life, earning pennies for a hard work life, while kids die every day of lack of nutrition. To fix the planet, first we need to get rid of profit driven societies.
- froddd 1y ago
  Soya is a bad analogy here. When forests are being destroyed to grow soya, it isn’t primarily soy to feed humans, but to feed cattle/stock to then feed humans. This is an order of magnitude more destructive. Edit: fully agree with the sentiment, getting rid of the profit-driven mindset would be beneficial to all.
rurp 1y ago
> Energy usage doesn't have to correspond to environmental damage much at all. Come on now, green energy is less bad than fossil fuels, often by a lot, but that's very different from having no impact. The mining to support solar panels does real measurable harm, as does disposing of old ones. There are similar environmental costs to every green energy source. I think nuclear is one of the least bad options and we should have been making more of it for decades, but it's hardly devoid of externalities. That's not to say we need to consume less energy, just that we should be clear eyed about the tradeoffs. So far there's very little evidence of a huge productivity boost from generative AI, especially relative to the immense energy consumption. Things are changing quickly, maybe that will improve in the near future. But if utility levels off where it is now and energy consumption increases another one or two orders of magnitude, and we're still keeping coal plants alive to support it, I'm going to be pretty skeptical it's worth the cost.
palata 1y ago
> Energy usage doesn't have to correspond to environmental damage much at all. That says that you don't understand the problems. We (Humanity) have 3 problems: 1. Mass extinction. It is a fact, we are living it, it's measurable and it's very bad. It is not at all due to climate change. 2. Fossil energy. It's harder to see in the US, but in Europe started feeling it in 2007. Fossil fuels are limited, and at the moment we've reached the global production peak in 2018 (2019?). Fossil fuels are of course a cause for global warming, but the end of easy access to fossil fuels is a problem in itself. A "degrowth mindset" is not necessarily an ideology, it's a rational behaviour towards a future with less fossil fuels and therefore less energy. 3. Global warming. Europe can feel that it gets worse every year now. It is just starting, and it's never going back. It will keep getting worse, and nobody alive today will see it get better. The only thing we can do to limit how worse it gets is by using less fossil energy, which brings us back to some kind of degrowth again. Don't mistake everyone who plans for degrowth for people who desire degrowth. The whole problem with the US is the growth mindset. Because the US will military invade other countries long before accepting that degrowth is unavoidable. Any country who believes that the US are an ally is making a mistake, and the US have made it exceedingly clear in the last few months: the US don't have allies, just (temporary) partners and no notion of loyalty.

pjmlp 1y ago

Because of the water cooling and all forms of producing energy that it entails. It is like loving the planet eating soja, while ignoring the forests being destroyed to satisfy demand as planting fields. Or farmable fields now being solar panel fields, because it is more profitable to sell energy, than living the farmer life, earning pennies for a hard work life, while kids die every day of lack of nutrition. To fix the planet, first we need to get rid of profit driven societies.

froddd 1y ago
Soya is a bad analogy here. When forests are being destroyed to grow soya, it isn’t primarily soy to feed humans, but to feed cattle/stock to then feed humans. This is an order of magnitude more destructive. Edit: fully agree with the sentiment, getting rid of the profit-driven mindset would be beneficial to all.

rurp 1y ago

> Energy usage doesn't have to correspond to environmental damage much at all. Come on now, green energy is less bad than fossil fuels, often by a lot, but that's very different from having no impact. The mining to support solar panels does real measurable harm, as does disposing of old ones. There are similar environmental costs to every green energy source. I think nuclear is one of the least bad options and we should have been making more of it for decades, but it's hardly devoid of externalities. That's not to say we need to consume less energy, just that we should be clear eyed about the tradeoffs. So far there's very little evidence of a huge productivity boost from generative AI, especially relative to the immense energy consumption. Things are changing quickly, maybe that will improve in the near future. But if utility levels off where it is now and energy consumption increases another one or two orders of magnitude, and we're still keeping coal plants alive to support it, I'm going to be pretty skeptical it's worth the cost.

palata 1y ago

> Energy usage doesn't have to correspond to environmental damage much at all. That says that you don't understand the problems. We (Humanity) have 3 problems: 1. Mass extinction. It is a fact, we are living it, it's measurable and it's very bad. It is not at all due to climate change. 2. Fossil energy. It's harder to see in the US, but in Europe started feeling it in 2007. Fossil fuels are limited, and at the moment we've reached the global production peak in 2018 (2019?). Fossil fuels are of course a cause for global warming, but the end of easy access to fossil fuels is a problem in itself. A "degrowth mindset" is not necessarily an ideology, it's a rational behaviour towards a future with less fossil fuels and therefore less energy. 3. Global warming. Europe can feel that it gets worse every year now. It is just starting, and it's never going back. It will keep getting worse, and nobody alive today will see it get better. The only thing we can do to limit how worse it gets is by using less fossil energy, which brings us back to some kind of degrowth again. Don't mistake everyone who plans for degrowth for people who desire degrowth. The whole problem with the US is the growth mindset. Because the US will military invade other countries long before accepting that degrowth is unavoidable. Any country who believes that the US are an ally is making a mistake, and the US have made it exceedingly clear in the last few months: the US don't have allies, just (temporary) partners and no notion of loyalty.