3 ms·

>If "use LLMs for a year" is enough to count as having a climate impact (negatively), then yes I believe "skip meat for a day use LLMs for a year" is enough to

>If "use LLMs for a year" is enough to count as having a climate impact (negatively), then yes I believe "skip meat for a day use LLMs for a year" is enough to count (positively). Sorry, I should have clarified. In this case I meant “argument” as a thing that leads real people to either understand or agree with your position, not the construction of an idea in your mind. With that in mind, do you think that “skip meat for a day use LLMs for a year” will convince enough real people, in real life, to not eat meat, that it offsets the emissions from LLM use? Like imagine the future. Since LLM use is a new category of energy use, you would have to convince people that haven’t already been convinced to skip meat by animal cruelty, health, philosophy, or existing climate concerns. People that were vegan before LLMs became popular obviously don’t count. The group of people that resisted decades of all that messaging will now make a meaningful adjustment to their consumption to cancel that out — and there will be enough of these new part time/full time vegans that it offsets the entire chat bot industry’s energy usage. Do you imagine that being what happens? If not it’s just somebody advocating for increased consumption in real life by invoking imaginary vegans. As somebody that’s spent years as a vegan I am incredibly wary of “vegans can recruit” as a pitch. I’ve only ever heard that from people that have never tried to recruit in earnest or charlatans. Like I’ve mostly heard that from people that are not, never have been, and have no interest in being vegan. Edit: >The strawman is you accusing people of supporting those generators. That’s not what a strawman is and it’s not an accusation, it’s an observation. If you say “I want subscription based online batched mega-high-compute language models” you are advocating for that industry, and those generators are part of it. Saying you feel that they’re somehow special and different because they’re icky does not make them any different from the thing that you say is necessarily the future. That you want!

Dylan16807 1y ago
I think anyone that does get convinced and skip meat should be able to use LLMs without shame or guilt, while we continue to pressure everyone else to save resources and we continue to pressure LLM companies to save resources. LLM companies only get let off the hook if a very large fraction of their users do the meat skip thing, which is not very likely but could theoretically happen. LLMs being a new category of energy use should get them some extra scrutiny, but only some. Maybe 3x scrutiny per wasted kilowatt hour compared to entrenched uses? If our real motivation is resource use, and not overreacting to change, LLMs should get some pressure but most of the pressure should go toward preexisting wasteful uses. Nobody is advocating to ignore LLMs. But we shouldn't overstate them too much either. And the giving up meat defense is not a defense for the companies, it's a defense for individual users that actually do it.
- jrflowers 1y ago
  It was a yes or no question Like not an if or maybe thing, what do you see when you picture the future? Do you think “Skip meat for a day use LLMs for a year” will produce enough new vegans to offset the energy usage and co2 produced by the LLM architecture of your choice? Not asking if you want it to happen or if it’s something you can imagine could happen, I’m asking if you think it will [_] yes [_] no Because if no, then the idea is just advocating for increased real consumption by invoking imaginary vegans! Edit: >LLM companies only get let off the hook if a very large fraction of their users do the meat skip thing, which is not very likely but could theoretically happen. The person I was initially talking to took the position that LLM companies have negligible impact because people can be vegan. J-bp was saying that LLM companies shouldn’t be on anybody’s radars because uh, meat is 100,000 times worse. The person you hopped in to defend was saying that LLM companies do not and should not have a “hook” because meat eaters exist
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    > It was a yes or no question [...] I’m asking if you think it will [x] no > Because if no, then the idea is just advocating for increased real consumption by invoking imaginary vegans! Wrong. > The person I was initially talking to took the position that LLM companies have negligible impact because people can be vegan. He said "LLMs are not the problem here", which is true. And he was arguing for individual use being offset when he said "maybe use ChatGPT to ask for vegan recipes". The top level comment was also about individual use. "I would really like it if an LLM tool would show me the power consumption and environmental impact of each request I’ve submitted." The comments right before you replied were also about individual use. "lifestyle choice". > J-bp was saying that LLM companies shouldn’t be on anybody’s radars because uh, meat is 100,000 times worse. The 100,000 number was a throwaway hypothetical to make a point. Not a number he was applying to LLMs in particular. Two lines later he threw in a 2,000x too. And what he said is that LLM companies are not "somewhat equally important". Which is true. He didn't say you should ignore them entirely, just to have a sense of proportion. - Edit: Here is an important distinction that I think isn't getting through. There are multiple separate points being made by j-bp: Point A, about not eating meat for a day, is only excusing anyone that actually does it. It's not a hypothetical that excuses the entire company. Point B, about the size of the impact, suggests caring less about LLMs based on raw resource use. Point B does not care about the relatively small group of people that take up the offer in Point A. Point B is just looking at the big picture.

Dylan16807 1y ago

I think anyone that does get convinced and skip meat should be able to use LLMs without shame or guilt, while we continue to pressure everyone else to save resources and we continue to pressure LLM companies to save resources. LLM companies only get let off the hook if a very large fraction of their users do the meat skip thing, which is not very likely but could theoretically happen. LLMs being a new category of energy use should get them some extra scrutiny, but only some. Maybe 3x scrutiny per wasted kilowatt hour compared to entrenched uses? If our real motivation is resource use, and not overreacting to change, LLMs should get some pressure but most of the pressure should go toward preexisting wasteful uses. Nobody is advocating to ignore LLMs. But we shouldn't overstate them too much either. And the giving up meat defense is not a defense for the companies, it's a defense for individual users that actually do it.

jrflowers 1y ago
It was a yes or no question Like not an if or maybe thing, what do you see when you picture the future? Do you think “Skip meat for a day use LLMs for a year” will produce enough new vegans to offset the energy usage and co2 produced by the LLM architecture of your choice? Not asking if you want it to happen or if it’s something you can imagine could happen, I’m asking if you think it will [_] yes [_] no Because if no, then the idea is just advocating for increased real consumption by invoking imaginary vegans! Edit: >LLM companies only get let off the hook if a very large fraction of their users do the meat skip thing, which is not very likely but could theoretically happen. The person I was initially talking to took the position that LLM companies have negligible impact because people can be vegan. J-bp was saying that LLM companies shouldn’t be on anybody’s radars because uh, meat is 100,000 times worse. The person you hopped in to defend was saying that LLM companies do not and should not have a “hook” because meat eaters exist
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  > It was a yes or no question [...] I’m asking if you think it will [x] no > Because if no, then the idea is just advocating for increased real consumption by invoking imaginary vegans! Wrong. > The person I was initially talking to took the position that LLM companies have negligible impact because people can be vegan. He said "LLMs are not the problem here", which is true. And he was arguing for individual use being offset when he said "maybe use ChatGPT to ask for vegan recipes". The top level comment was also about individual use. "I would really like it if an LLM tool would show me the power consumption and environmental impact of each request I’ve submitted." The comments right before you replied were also about individual use. "lifestyle choice". > J-bp was saying that LLM companies shouldn’t be on anybody’s radars because uh, meat is 100,000 times worse. The 100,000 number was a throwaway hypothetical to make a point. Not a number he was applying to LLMs in particular. Two lines later he threw in a 2,000x too. And what he said is that LLM companies are not "somewhat equally important". Which is true. He didn't say you should ignore them entirely, just to have a sense of proportion. - Edit: Here is an important distinction that I think isn't getting through. There are multiple separate points being made by j-bp: Point A, about not eating meat for a day, is only excusing anyone that actually does it. It's not a hypothetical that excuses the entire company. Point B, about the size of the impact, suggests caring less about LLMs based on raw resource use. Point B does not care about the relatively small group of people that take up the offer in Point A. Point B is just looking at the big picture.