HPC admin here. A "small" 7 rack, SOTA CPU cluster uses ~700KW of energy for computing, plus there's the energy requirements of cooling. GPUs use much more in

HPC admin here. A "small" 7 rack, SOTA CPU cluster uses ~700KW of energy for computing, plus there's the energy requirements of cooling. GPUs use much more in the same rack space. In DLC settings you supply 20-ish degree C water from primary circuit to heat exchanger, and get it back at 40-ish degree C, and then you pump this heat to environment, plus the thermodynamic losses. This is a "micro" system when compared to big boys. How there can be no environmental harm when you need to run a power plant on-premises and pump that much heat in much bigger scale 24/7 to environment. Who are we kidding here? When this is done for science and intermittently, both the grid and the environment can tolerate this. When you run "normal" compute systems (e.g. serving GMail or standard cloud loads), both the grid and environment can tolerate this. But running at full power and pumping this much energy in and heat out to train AI and run inference is a completely different load profile, and it is not harmless. > the cognitive harms and AI supported suicides Extensive use of AI is shown to change brain's neural connections and makes some areas of brain lazy. There are a couple of papers. There was a 16 year old boy's ChatGPT fueled death on the front page today, BTW. > This is the best argument on the page imo, and even that is highly debated. My blog is strictly licensed with a non-commercial and no-derivatives license. AI companies gets my text, derives it and sells it. No consent, no questions asked. Same models consume GPL and Source Available code the same and offer their derivations to anyone who pays. Again, infringing both licenses in the process. Consent & Copyright is a big problem in AI, where the companies wants us to believe otherwise.