jsomae

My point is we can’t stop fighting for the environment and throw it under the bus just because AI is the new threat of the day.

100% agree. However, I don't think AI is a serious environmental threat. It's a threat for other reasons.

Since what happens on Lemmy stays on Lemmy, I guess it must be fine.

yeah but he's a daddy tho 😘

Yeah I agree that AI is going to kill us, but I don't think it's the environmental impact from AI that is a serious concern. Google's numbers are that their water usage is equivalent to 55 golf courses (there are nearly 1k golf courses in california) -- that's their whole company, not just AI. And as for power usage, they're about equal to the city of Toronto -- that's a lot, but they're already building nuclear power plants, so that seems like a net positive for environmental impact to me. We won't need to burn coal if they are selling bone-aching ad-driven nuclear power as a side hustle on their AI business. (I'm speculating they would do this, but it seems like something they'd do.) I hate ads but I'll take ads over fossil fuels.

I most likely hate AI as much as you do, so you know, I am not stubbornly resistant to the idea that they might be bad for the environment. This is just what my research indicates, that they're not a serious environmental concern. You can change my mind if you have a different perspective -- I mean this earnestly. I'm all ears.

I don't know of anyone out there who opposes AI for purely environmental reasons but approves of its societal impact. I could be wrong. But I think a lot of us don't really believe that it has much impact on the environment. The numbers are quantifiable -- and it's pretty small compared to other things. It could become a problem with exponential growth, but like, is it that big a deal if we end up with nuclear power? And all the water being used as coolant comes from, say, Virginia, where as I understand it they have no dearth of water and that's where most of the datacentres are being built?

I'm not saying that the it being soulless slop is a hard fact. I'm saying the whole fuck-ai crowd agrees on this, as do I. But I don't think we all agree about the environmental impact being a serious concern (since the evidence for this is, in my view, questionable; and I suspect this is the opinion of others here as well.)

Here's google's environmental impact report, then.

How about let's all not talk or make angry memes about the guy. Ross requested that he not be harassed. Something about not wanting negative energy.

How much energy does AI really use? (zdnet) Seems like queries aren't that expensive, so I guess the enormous energy cost of AI must be mostly from training. I reckon this is why apologists try to minimize it.

I'm skeptical that those 4k developers are using their entire GPU for 8 hours a day. I would be surprised if even 10% of the ~~brain~~ GPU was being used. Though there are CI servers running ontop of that, but typically much fewer than there are developers. I would estimate 5 GWh as a liberal upper bound.

Seems more like "putting things in scale" than "whataboutism." I'm not sure I agree with the premise, but I don't think it's whataboutism at all. Whataboutism would be "it's fine, because something else is worse," whereas I think the commenter is trying to say "it's not much, since it's less than something else that isn't much either."

Don't listen to them.

some day I hope to be brave enough to post pictures of my house on the internet