This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Does that take into account that AI models will become more efficient with time?
We never actually used large numbers of monkeys paired with typewritters to produce new literature.
Why? Because it would have wasted all the bananas to produce a bunch of shit.
That is all this level of AI is really equivilant to.
Throwing pudding at a wall, deciding if that toss is closer to the goal than before, changing something, then repeating.
Maybe dont waste the resources until the process is more efficient.
Oh yea, this is happening too.
If I run some AI model on my GPU and power my computer via solar power and some batteries, am I actually contributing significantly to GHG emissions?
Like what is the embodied energy of an AI model?
As usual, pundits and scientists confuse what is and what could be with the truth. For example plastic recycling isn't possible because "right now economics don't make it profitable". Meaning capitalism is killing us, not plastics. I suspect the same is true for AI.
The model has to be trained, refined, etc. You running it off grid isn't the entire process, but I agree with you in a different sense.
If not AI, then there would be some other kind of compute taking up server capacity. It's on the data centers to solve this one, not AI.
yea but the models are already trained and noone pays to use the open source ones, so you're not really contributing to the training greenhouse gas emissions if you use an open source gen ai model locally.
Training a model isn't free. It takes money and compute. That's also the greenhouse emissions. Even if you don't pay for any model and run it locally using solar, you've still got to consider what came before.
From construction of three data centers or everyday use. Weird wording this whole article.
Everyone thought AI was going to kill us via some Terminator-like Skynet.
Nope.
It’s just going to let us kill ourselves via greed and accelerate destroying the environment.
Its the 'first to market wins' paradigm
But it's ok because it's also going to solve climate change.
The solution it will eventually come up with - kill all humans
And even if it doesn't, it'll still make hundreds of trillions of dollars doing it, so it was worth it in the end.
Don't worry, it's all very green!
The cash and stock tickers that is.
"The only way to interpret statistics is with a healthy dose of skepticism and a thorough understanding of their context."
While people in this thread jump at the opportunity for this slice of statistics to affirm their confirmation biases, intelligent people will ask what the total carbon dioxide output looks like by comparison.
Can't be logical here. This is a topic that's like discussing immigration with Republicans.
You're quick to imply that this study is bullshit, yet offer no counter argument except "believing statistics is for losers lul"
So where are your sources to refute the article?
Never said the study was bullshit. I just said to look at the bigger picture.
I would show you how Google works and provide an article, but your reading comprehension leads me to believe you'd come up with another straw man fallacy to support your confirmation bias.
Oh fuck off already, nobody cares.
Do we have an iamverysmart community? We could use one.
Lol you cared enough to respond. Sorry you're too stupid to hold a conversation.
Ita also trivial to come to the same conclusion at a smaller scale.
You can run a LLM at home and see the amount of GPU & power resources it takes to compute the larger models. If I ran that full time, your household bill will most likely be 3x alone.
Every IT company now: we should increase our server costs by 100x to offer unwanted gimmicks that users don't want and aren't willing to pay
And don't trust
Lesson: only ask AI if you're still stuck after searching and have no colleague around.
This is the "carbon footprint" fallacy created by big oil. We should vote left and unionize until either the external cost of pollution is internalized with pigouvian taxes, or electricity is rationed by a community-owned organization.
Nobody will notice us shooting ourselves in the foot and expecting corporations to do it too. They don't care if we lead by example unilaterally.
There exists an alternative that uses a lot less power. And also that power is going to get spent no matter what anyway.
and also that power is going to get spent no matter what anyway
Yeah but it leads to higher bills for consumers, and generators can get spun down, and it's keeping fossil fuel plants open, etc.
The alternative I was talking about are called employee brains.
