3 ms·

It's not necessarily a doomsday cult as long as there is incentive to build green infrastructure. AI is a massive waste of power in many (most?) cases, but ele

It's not necessarily a doomsday cult as long as there is incentive to build green infrastructure. AI is a massive waste of power in many (most?) cases, but electricity does not necessarily need to be generated in a way that releases CO2. Solar panels, wind farms, geothermic energy, and even nuclear plants can satisfy AI's requirements and only leave it to be a local problem. Unfortunately, the USA, the government of country with the biggest impact per citizen as well as the hotbed of current AI development, has started taking down climate change related information to serve their oil baron masters. That leaves environmental responsibility with companies and their shareholders. AI isn't a doomsday cult. It's the epitome of the "Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders" meme in real life.

saubeidl 1y ago
A few points here. If AI were to not use so much energy, we would have a much easier time covering our need with green sources. Yes, we can probably also account for the additional use by AI, but it'll make an already existential challenge so much harder. Regarding your last paragraph - AI is just the riders of the apocalypse. The doomsday cult is capitalism.
- keyringlight 1y ago
  We've already proven we can build huge amounts of renewable generation if we want, the issue I see is that additional huge demands like AI prevent us from making carbon based generation redundant, lowest priority choice in the mix of sources or used exclusively for its strengths to respond quickly to changing needs.
lopis 1y ago
Right now we are using renewables essentially at capacity, always. Any extra electricity use therefore needs fossil fuels to power it. It's as simple as that. The AI computation explosion is completely irresponsible and any claims that it can be green are false unless the data centers produce their own solar/nuclear on-site (and even then it's producing tons of waste heat).
- shafyy 1y ago
  Exactly. Why is this so hard to understand? It's about the marignal use. I can't believe anybody who is smart and thought about this for two seconds can make this argument in good faith.
munksbeer 1y ago
> AI isn't a doomsday cult. It's the epitome of the "Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders" meme in real life. What if the pursuit of real AI is what eventually saves humanity and leads to a utopian rather than dystopian future?
- nisa 1y ago
  We know what to do. We don't need to wait for some magic AI that's basically learned from books written by humans to tell us what to do. It's all about power structures, capitalism and money. Everyone in the oil business knew in the 80ies. We could probably even figure out how to keep our standard of living but consumerism needs to stop but then capitalism breaks down.
- saubeidl 1y ago
  That is a pretty big if to be betting the house on. I'm not comfortable with that call being made on my behalf by those with everything to gain from it. The same people that have coincidentally been building doomsday bunkers.
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
  > utopian rather than dystopian future To that, I must ask: look at the people driving the revolution, and their personal ethics. What future do you think they will provide?
  - munksbeer 1y ago
    If you really want me to comment, then I can, but people downvote different opinions on AI here, so it doesn't seem fruitful. I'm an optimist by nature. I probably do err on the side of optimism. But when I look back over history, I see a trend upward in living standards, despite the modern determination to pretend this hasn't happened, or to cherry pick data to prove the opposite, and despite prophecies of doom at almost every step change. I'm inclined to believe that will continue to happen, that regardless of what people personally think of Altman, Zuckerberg, etc, that ultimately, strong AI is inevitable, and that it will be a force for improving our lives. I do not believe we'll be relegated to poor existences, while the captains of AI or whoever the elite are defined to be, live in paradise with robot workers do everything for them. It just makes no sense.
newsclues 1y ago
"It's not necessarily a doomsday cult as long as there is incentive to build green infrastructure." is building green infrastructure environmentally friendly? The mines, machinery, ships, concrete, steel, the processing plants, etc, really Green, just because it's for EVs or batteries?
- netsharc 1y ago
  EVs really are a "slightly better" solution the planet's health can't even afford. ICE cars are worse but EVs aren't helping save the planet either. Ideally we should probably all be cycling or taking trains and buses... Of course humanity runs on balance between living (and procreating) and saving the planet.. the quickest way to save the planet would be for all of us to drop dead, but very few of us would be in favor of that idea.
PeterStuer 1y ago
"AI is a massive waste of power". So is nearly everything of what we do and consume. Not sure why AI would be the 'epitome' besides being this month's flavor of convenient whipping boy. Especially here in Europe we like to play the 'Greener than Thou' card while for decades have been doing absolutely nothing real besides imaginary 'carbon credit' spreadsheet shenanigans, tipple passing the subsidy handouts for burning our forests in Dutch incinerators, exporting all our 'emissions' to China and paying very dubious buddies on the other side of the world for 'net zero' absolutions while tripling our real pollution.
- vimy 1y ago
  > exporting all our 'emissions' to China A popular narrative but it’s false. Even when we take it into account Europe’s emissions keep dropping. It’s a small % of China’s massive emissions. They produce and consume on a level we can’t fathom. Their middle class has more people than the US and EU combined.
  - PeterStuer 1y ago
    If we used to consume 1 locally produced widget and had x emissions as a result, and now consume 3 China produced widgets shipped to us from around the world, while pretending we now have zero emissions as a result, how would you call that?
    - vimy 1y ago
      Let me be more clear. European emissions are down compared to the 90s. By a lot. And yes, taking into account 'exported emissions'. And yet we consume more. Time to rethink what you have been told.
seviu 1y ago
We gotta build legislations that force Bitcoin mining facilities or big data centers to massively improve the grid and make sure they have plans to run on self powered nuclear or green energy. The case of Bitcoin is more damning because pow for just no reason, serves no purpose. Security by consuming massive amounts of power. There is a reason why Ethereum successfully moved away from that. But Bitcoin will never dare to. Unfortunately as you say the powers are currently focusing on denying what is clearly undeniable. This article made me fear first time since a while for what kind of future are my daughters live in. I am truly sorry and sad.
radicalbyte 1y ago
Given the bill that the Americans just passed.. it's going to be an absolute shit-show. The smart play was to allow AI to fuel a massive growth in production of solar panels and wind in the US which could actually rival China (who are going to eat the US within a decade) but corruption has put pay to that.

saubeidl 1y ago

A few points here. If AI were to not use so much energy, we would have a much easier time covering our need with green sources. Yes, we can probably also account for the additional use by AI, but it'll make an already existential challenge so much harder. Regarding your last paragraph - AI is just the riders of the apocalypse. The doomsday cult is capitalism.

keyringlight 1y ago
We've already proven we can build huge amounts of renewable generation if we want, the issue I see is that additional huge demands like AI prevent us from making carbon based generation redundant, lowest priority choice in the mix of sources or used exclusively for its strengths to respond quickly to changing needs.

lopis 1y ago

Right now we are using renewables essentially at capacity, always. Any extra electricity use therefore needs fossil fuels to power it. It's as simple as that. The AI computation explosion is completely irresponsible and any claims that it can be green are false unless the data centers produce their own solar/nuclear on-site (and even then it's producing tons of waste heat).

shafyy 1y ago
Exactly. Why is this so hard to understand? It's about the marignal use. I can't believe anybody who is smart and thought about this for two seconds can make this argument in good faith.

munksbeer 1y ago

> AI isn't a doomsday cult. It's the epitome of the "Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders" meme in real life. What if the pursuit of real AI is what eventually saves humanity and leads to a utopian rather than dystopian future?

nisa 1y ago
We know what to do. We don't need to wait for some magic AI that's basically learned from books written by humans to tell us what to do. It's all about power structures, capitalism and money. Everyone in the oil business knew in the 80ies. We could probably even figure out how to keep our standard of living but consumerism needs to stop but then capitalism breaks down.
saubeidl 1y ago
That is a pretty big if to be betting the house on. I'm not comfortable with that call being made on my behalf by those with everything to gain from it. The same people that have coincidentally been building doomsday bunkers.
ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
> utopian rather than dystopian future To that, I must ask: look at the people driving the revolution, and their personal ethics. What future do you think they will provide?
- munksbeer 1y ago
  If you really want me to comment, then I can, but people downvote different opinions on AI here, so it doesn't seem fruitful. I'm an optimist by nature. I probably do err on the side of optimism. But when I look back over history, I see a trend upward in living standards, despite the modern determination to pretend this hasn't happened, or to cherry pick data to prove the opposite, and despite prophecies of doom at almost every step change. I'm inclined to believe that will continue to happen, that regardless of what people personally think of Altman, Zuckerberg, etc, that ultimately, strong AI is inevitable, and that it will be a force for improving our lives. I do not believe we'll be relegated to poor existences, while the captains of AI or whoever the elite are defined to be, live in paradise with robot workers do everything for them. It just makes no sense.

newsclues 1y ago

"It's not necessarily a doomsday cult as long as there is incentive to build green infrastructure." is building green infrastructure environmentally friendly? The mines, machinery, ships, concrete, steel, the processing plants, etc, really Green, just because it's for EVs or batteries?

netsharc 1y ago
EVs really are a "slightly better" solution the planet's health can't even afford. ICE cars are worse but EVs aren't helping save the planet either. Ideally we should probably all be cycling or taking trains and buses... Of course humanity runs on balance between living (and procreating) and saving the planet.. the quickest way to save the planet would be for all of us to drop dead, but very few of us would be in favor of that idea.

PeterStuer 1y ago

"AI is a massive waste of power". So is nearly everything of what we do and consume. Not sure why AI would be the 'epitome' besides being this month's flavor of convenient whipping boy. Especially here in Europe we like to play the 'Greener than Thou' card while for decades have been doing absolutely nothing real besides imaginary 'carbon credit' spreadsheet shenanigans, tipple passing the subsidy handouts for burning our forests in Dutch incinerators, exporting all our 'emissions' to China and paying very dubious buddies on the other side of the world for 'net zero' absolutions while tripling our real pollution.

vimy 1y ago
> exporting all our 'emissions' to China A popular narrative but it’s false. Even when we take it into account Europe’s emissions keep dropping. It’s a small % of China’s massive emissions. They produce and consume on a level we can’t fathom. Their middle class has more people than the US and EU combined.
- PeterStuer 1y ago
  If we used to consume 1 locally produced widget and had x emissions as a result, and now consume 3 China produced widgets shipped to us from around the world, while pretending we now have zero emissions as a result, how would you call that?
  - vimy 1y ago
    Let me be more clear. European emissions are down compared to the 90s. By a lot. And yes, taking into account 'exported emissions'. And yet we consume more. Time to rethink what you have been told.

seviu 1y ago

We gotta build legislations that force Bitcoin mining facilities or big data centers to massively improve the grid and make sure they have plans to run on self powered nuclear or green energy. The case of Bitcoin is more damning because pow for just no reason, serves no purpose. Security by consuming massive amounts of power. There is a reason why Ethereum successfully moved away from that. But Bitcoin will never dare to. Unfortunately as you say the powers are currently focusing on denying what is clearly undeniable. This article made me fear first time since a while for what kind of future are my daughters live in. I am truly sorry and sad.

radicalbyte 1y ago

Given the bill that the Americans just passed.. it's going to be an absolute shit-show. The smart play was to allow AI to fuel a massive growth in production of solar panels and wind in the US which could actually rival China (who are going to eat the US within a decade) but corruption has put pay to that.