230
The ugly truth behind ChatGPT: AI is guzzling resources at planet-eating rates
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
230 points (94.2% liked)
Technology
34821 readers
19 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I never understand this line of thought. The amounts of energy we use is never ever going to go down. It just isn't. This shouldn't be an argument against tech using power. It should be an argument for clean energy solutions.
I sort of agree with you, but also think we need to incentivize efficiency (or disincentivize inefficiency). As mentioned in the article, there is also the issue of the immense quantities of water used by data centers, a byproduct of power use and inefficiency. If we could at least capture and store that heat energy to do something useful, it would be a huge improvement.
This makes sense to me, we could continue to develop and use important technologies while at the same time setting things up so their externalities are part of their cost and companies have financial reasons to work to reduce the impact.
Yeah, this is the real problem, and it goes far beyond LLMs (pretty much any resource extraction or heavy industry, for example).
Not really. Every energy solution produces some kind of waste which can't be recycled. Saving energy is always good. It also saves budget and space. I'd say your opinion is a contribution to very unsustainable future.
Even solar and wind? What are the waste products with these that can't be recycled?
I didn't downvote but wine turbines are not easily recyclable due to all the fiberglass and resin. They're finding new uses but lots still get buried in landfills when they're decommissioned
Thanks, I appreciate the answer. The downvotes for questions blow my mind. It's like there is some group of people that has been tricked into thinking that questions are an attack or something.
The issue is that there are a lot of bad actors "just asking questions". You're not one. A lot of folks have a hard time assuming good intentions because of all the shit people pushing bad agendas by feigning ignorance.
I try to assume the best, but I don't always make it.
I haven't seen much sealioning on Lemmy. People here tend to be pretty upfront with their (strongly-held) opinions.
This can and will change; see https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67718719 for one of the options.
They have batteries, solar panels take space and lose efficiency over time (can be recycled I think) and I think wind turbines use some lubricants and paint that are always bad for environment. These still aren't too bad though. Nuclear energy is worse in this department. Used fuel cells can only be recycled as weapons which is worse than no recycling
If we don't develop practical nuclear fusion before our fossil inheritance effectively runs out we sure will. It will also go down following ecological collapse caused by using all that energy. Infinite energy doesn't make up for a collapsed ecosystem.
Just to add: Even if we can replace the energy from diminishing fossils with nuclear etc, there are still a huge forest/mountain of essential technology and products that are reliant on fossils, and they won't be replaced by anything. I can recommend Nate Hagens on YT for more on the 'energy blindness' issue, and what it means for our civilization to lose the last.
Nate is amazing, he and some of his guests are exactly who I learned this from.
True enough.
Fusion would be better, but the fission tech we have is already enough to fix the energy problem.
Why not fission?
To some degree, fission also, though it has a few other problems like safety and security concerns around nuclear materials, locations of fuels and whether they are in friendly nations, other things the fuels can be used for and all the politics that goes with that, etc.
But we need more than just energy. At some point, regardless of our energy, we are going to destroy Earth's ecosystems using up other resources, using this energy to mine unsustainably, etc. More energy just means we kill ourselves faster. We should not be looking for more or cleaner energy with which to kill ourselves with, we should be looking to continuity of our species and that requires living sustainably within the bounds of our environment.
I staunchly disagree with this. If a government actually cared about power consumption, they would subsidize the development of better X86 to arm translation layers so we can move to more power efficient processors.
There's actually a lot we could do in order to reduce our energy consumption.
Another step I would take is completely outlawing the sale of advertisements to data brokers. There are so many resources that go to pumping out advertisements from servers, and it really just is not beneficial to anybody except for the companies.
I know this would not be popular among a lot of developers, but for certain applications, I would also curb planned obsolescence by creating a minimum viable processor and graphics requirement for certain applications. A lot of the times, the kinds of applications we use just don't need as much power as they're guzzling We need to end the feature creep.
I mean you can disagree with it but it doesn't make it any less true. Banning data brokers wouldnt do jack shit, governments are so technically illiterate that they dont even understand what you just said, nevermind know what ARM is, and youre also wrong about power usage in applications.
Which applications?
I think the real question is what is the value we are getting out of the resources used? Do we need AI forced into every platform? Personally, I don't think so. But just to be sure I asked Chat GPT and here is its answer:
"Rather than integrating Al into every possible application, a more measured approach might be beneficial. Assessing the actual need and impact of Al in specific use cases can help avoid unnecessary energy consumption. Al should be implemented where it provides significant benefits and improvements, rather than as a default addition to every platform."
So even the AI itself knows it is used frivolously.
A large part of creation is trying things and seeing what sticks. Nobody is claiming that every way LLMs are being tried out today will always be here. We are just doing what we think of and seeing what is useful. The useful things will stick around and evolve, other things won't. Go back to videos from the early 90s when computers were starting, people talked so much shit on them. Now, we all have the future generations of them in our pockets.
And nothing bad ever came of this. That's true, that's true.
Do you think that people were better off before computers? How so? Do you think there was more or less war? Do you think people died at an older or younger age? Do you think people had more or less years of sickness? Do you think more or fewer mothers and children died at childbirth? Do you think there were more or fewer rapes? Do you think there were more or fewer murders? Do you think we knew more or less about the universe beyond our planet? Do you think we knew more or less about the laws of physics? Chemistry? Biology?
In nearly all measurable ways, the lives of humans have improved since the advent of computers. To act otherwise is naive.
Let's imagine that there are 16 good things about computers, and 3 bad ones.
I don't like the bad ones.
So, what shit were these morons saying then, hm?
Yeah, sure, there are things to dislike about computers. In the same way, ambulances suck because they are noisy. Ovens suck because they can overcook your food...
It is wild how people mocked computers/internet back in the day. Lots of people are too young to remember it. Here is Letterman mocking the internet while a crowd laughs along. It's basically the same as when people mock LLMs/AI or blockchain or whatever other new technology that they don't understand.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Here
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
And how ads on TV are sometimes so much louder than the show they're cut between. And the glitches! Sometimes, you have to completely power cycle your phone to fix something simple. And how Facebook's curated, algorithmic feed sends people down extremist pipelines, fueling things like public shootings and the January 2021 Capital riots. And how the continued atomization of society into smaller and smaller pieces (e.g. suburbia) has made people lonelier than they ever have been. And how the displacement of work onto capable machines never seems to yield benefits onto the people whose work is being displaced, only their bosses.
I guess if all you remember are Letterman's fumbling grandpa jokes about what the Internet is, gosh dang, even useful for, I could see why you'd think nobody's criticisms are real.
And amazingly, despite all these awful things you listed, nearly everything is better. People kill strangers less. People kill their families less. People rape each other less. People torture each other less. Countries go to war less. People live longer. People live healthier. People starve less. These things all used to be much much bigger than they are now.
Pick someone out of history and ask them if they would rather watch all their children die of a horrible plague, or they have to live in a world where some idiots are messaging each other about Q-Anon. What do you think they will say they prefer?
Personally, I'd much rather some idiots running into a special building wearing stupid costumes than deal with the absolute living hell of the pre-technology world absolutely any day. So would you.
And what part of this requires the facebook engagement algorithm?
I prefer an internet where anyone is free to share the code they want to as opposed to an internet where everything has to be submitted to an authority who has to ok it. Imagine all the innovation that would be stifled in a society where such a system was in place. If you think would prefer that, then maybe North Korea is the place where you would be happiest.
The reason websites have things like engagement algorithms is because they are advertisement based, and they sell user data. This seems shitty at first glance, but it is what people prefer. The alternative is subscription based. Both models have been presented, and people chose what they wanted. Nobody forced them. As time goes on, things evolve. I like to think that in the future, people will move more towards decentralized, community run websites. That's why I am on Lemmy, and I am not on Facebook. I am certainly happy that I have the freedom to choose. I am also happy that anyone has the freedom to make whatever options they want to offer.
Oh, I understand. So, it was advertisers who fueled the 2021 capital riots.
What if that authority only disallowed bad things like murder and insider trading. Hm. Yeah, that doesn't really feel like North Korea at all.
It's not only advertisers. It is a need for engagement. Facebook makes money if people are engaged, both from advertisement and selling data. People prefer to use platforms that have lots of money to put into the user experince. Maybe this will change as people become more aware, maybe with things like the fediverse.
Oftentimes, things like murder and insider trading are at least attempted to be stopped, I don't know what your point is there. This was a discussion on whether or not the government should stop Facebook from having code that keeps users engaged. I said it is better if the government doesn't verify all the code that makes it on the internet. That is what the government does in places like North Korea.
And why should those things be stopped? See, unlike you, "I believe in freedom." If people don't like their company town, they shall simply move away~.
You also said this apropos of nothing. I didn't say anything about vetting code. You think I care if Biden has read your commit messages.
You complained about the Facebook engagement algorithm. I said they should be allowed to run the code and people use it if they choose. You disagreed.
It is a bit weird that you've flipped over to my side, and now you want freedom, and you're trying to put me over on your original side. It's nice that we both agree now. Nice chatting.
Not voluntarily maybe. But that’s not the only way. The only outcomes of any “realistic” course correction to the current state of the world and human behavior include widespread death and societal collapse once uncontrolled climate change takes hold for real, and at that point, it’ll go down quite a bit.
Doomer mentality aside, thats irrelevant to what I'm saying.
Sure, if civilisation as we know it collapses. In the eventuality that it doesn't, we still need clean power.
Opportunity cost is a pretty well understood concept.
Like, inagine you have 100 gallons of water. You could use all of them to water a single water intensive plant that will feed one person, or you could use them to water a whole farm that will feed a community, and also let people drink and bathe and stuff.
The resource is limited.
Sure, we could try to get more of the resource and make it less expensive, but we should also not squander what we have.
Same thing whenever you see articles about Bitcoin's energy use. Or the energy usage of any tech service/product:
Just ragebait tailored to their readers who already have strong negative opinions about this asset class but not about bonds or stocks or other asset classes for some reason. Even though Bitcoin has kept all its promises for 15 years in a row, never been hacked, never experienced an hour of downtime, or bank holiday, and never had its value printed away by an ever increasing supply (supply is capped at 21 million coins).