Save The Planet
-
Why do you want a subsidy for batteries?
Installing batteries at a large scale at homes is incredibly expensive compared to an off site battery. Especially with regards to the move towards hydrogen.For the same reason we want to subsidize solar production in residential construction even though it's more efficient and cost-productive to do it at-scale. Having energy production and storage at the point of use reduces strain on power infrastructure and helps alleviate the types of load surging ayyy is talking about.
It's not a replacement for modernizing our power grids, too - it simply helps to make them more resilient.
-
And I guess they need it to be inefficient and expensive, so that it remains exclusive to them. That's why they were throwing a tantrum at Deepseek, because they proved it doesn't have to be.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Bingo.
Altman et al want to kill open source AI for a monopoly.
This is what the entire AI research space already knew even before deepseek hit, and why they (largely) think so little of Sam Altman.
The real battle in the space is not AI vs no AI, but exclusive use by AI Bros vs. open models that bankrupt them. Which is what I keep trying to tell /c/fuck_ai, as the "no AI" stance plays right into the AI Bro's hands.
-
How about, fuck AI, end story.
how about, fuck capitalism? Have you lost sight of the goal?
-
True, and that's how everyone who is able should use AI, but OpenAI's models are in the trillion parameter range. That's 2-3 orders of magnitude more than what you can reasonably run yourself
wrote on last edited by [email protected]This is still orders of magnitude less than what it takes to run an EV, which are an eco-friendly form of carbrained transportation. Especially if you live in an area where the power source is renewable. On that note, it looks to me like AI is finally going to be the impetus to get the U.S. to invest in and switch to nuclear power -- isn't that altogether a good thing for the environment?
-
I'm really OOTL when it comes to AI GHG impact. How is it any worse than crypto farms, or streaming services?
How do their outputs stack up to traditional emitters like Ag and industry? I need a measuring stick
wrote on last edited by [email protected]The UC paper above touches on that. I will link a better one if I find it.
But specifically:
streaming services
Almost all the power from this is from internet infrastructure and the end device. Encoding videos (for them to be played thousands/millions of times) is basically free since its only done once, with the exception being YouTube (which is still very efficient). Storage servers can handle tons of clients (hence they're dirt cheap), and (last I heard) Netflix even uses local cache boxes to shorten the distance.
TBH it must be less per capita than CRTs. Old TVs burned power like crazy.
-
First off let me say, thanks for having this conversation, I'm enjoying it.
Educational holidays are a concession and would have to be tested. So holiday goers would have to show they're attending lectures and visiting sites for the bulk of their visit. I honestly haven't fleshed out the idea as I just came up with it.
But to talk about tourism, I think it was Prague that was able to showcase just how damaging tourism truly is. The city centre has miniscule local residency due to properties being brought up to lease as Airbnbs. With businesses attempting to target tourists, prices of food and travel increased and you know what didn't go up wages. So people were forced to move out of the city and commute in just to serve tourists things they can't afford. During tourist season, it's vibrant and busy, off-season it's a ghost town. The citizens aren't benefiting, it's exactly the opposite. Tourism is just imperialism flexing its muscles.
Absolutely! Like I said, this is a topic I've always struggled with, and I've leaned both ways. I just so happen to be leaning on the side of recreational air travel this week lol.
The example with Prague strikes me as rooted in capitalism, not so much tourism. Like, ideally governments (local or otherwise) in tourist-heavy areas step in and implement things that address those capitalistic problems you describe - penalize rental property conglomerates, enforce a liveable minimum wage, build affordable permanent housing and mixed-use spaces, etc. I hear your comparison between tourism and imperialism, and I get that some tourist areas are pretty awful where the local residents are treated as subhuman and that definitely sucks, but idk, it feels more like a capitalist/classist issue to me.
-
I'm really OOTL when it comes to AI GHG impact. How is it any worse than crypto farms, or streaming services?
How do their outputs stack up to traditional emitters like Ag and industry? I need a measuring stick
Also, one other thing is that Nvidia clocks their GPUs (aka the world's AI accelerators) very inefficiently, because they have a pseudo monopoly, and they can.
It doesn't have to be this way, and likely wont in the future.
-
It's closer to running 8 high-end video games at once. Sure, from a scale perspective it's further removed from training, but it's still fairly expensive.
nice name btw
-
Just like screens in cars, and MASSIVE trucks. We don't want this. Well, some dumbass Americans do, but intelligent people don't need a 32 ton 6 wheel drive pickup to haul jr to soccer.
Massive trucks? They need those trucks for truck stuff, like this giant dilhole parking with his wife to go to Aldi today. Not even a flag on the end of that ladder, it filled a whole spot by itself.
My couch wouldn't fit in that bed, and every giant truck I see is sparkling shiny and looks like it hasn't done a day of hard labor, much like the drivers.
-
Climate change is unstoppable. Humanity is mostly doomed very, very soon.
So, fuck y'all, my two window units are running 24/7 @ 69F for the foreseeable future.
If by "climate change" you mean societal climate, then yes, i'd see your point. Society feels more angry year after year, it's definitely heating up.
If you mean "climate change" as is typically understood, then no. The solar revolution is progressing quite swiftly. We're probably gonna reduce CO2 emissions by 50% in 2032 (my personal guess).
-
Classic neo-liberalism - privatize the benefits, socialize the costs.
Corporations : "We should get to gobble all power with our projects... and you should have the personal responsibility to reduce power usage even though it would - at best - only improve things at the very edges of the margins... and then we can get away with whatever we want."
Just like with paper straws. You get crappy straws and they hope you feel like you're helping the environment (even though the plastic straws account for like 0.00002% of plastic waste generated) ... meanwhile 80% of the actual pollution and waste being generated by like 12 corporations gets to continue.
I feel like i've read a very similar argument somewhere recently, but i have difficulty remembering it precisely. It went something like this:
- If a company kills 5 people, it was either an accident, an unfortunate mishap, a necessity of war (in case of the weapons industry) or some other bullshit excuse.
- If the people threaten to kill 5 billionaires, they're charged with "terrorism" (see Luigi Mangione's case).
-
This post did not contain any content.
What are you talking about? I can run pocket pall localy on my phone, and I have this:
-
For the same reason we want to subsidize solar production in residential construction even though it's more efficient and cost-productive to do it at-scale. Having energy production and storage at the point of use reduces strain on power infrastructure and helps alleviate the types of load surging ayyy is talking about.
It's not a replacement for modernizing our power grids, too - it simply helps to make them more resilient.
That's understandable but do we need it now? Neither pv nor batteries last forever. I'm just not sure if we need them now (or short-medium term future). But I'm not in the position to decide upon it
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
We're going away folks, and nothing of any true value will be lost, except all the species that did live in homeostasis with the Earth that we're taking with us in our species' avarice induced murder-suicide
-
What are you talking about? I can run pocket pall localy on my phone, and I have this:
Nwm, Lemmy being Lamey by not allowing the image to load.
-
nice name btw
-
How about, fuck AI, end story.
I did, as a matter of fact, fuck AI.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I tried to make an image of a woman with 5 tits but got distracted and got married to a rock
-
This post did not contain any content.
5 tits, that's awesome.
-
I am agreeing with you that the solutions exist, but the will to implement them is going to be the hard part. A big dampener is simply going to be the profit motive. There is more money in siding with the data center than a the households. Are households okay with an increasing in price? Data center is likely to manage that better, or even just pay a bribe to someone. I used food as another example of a problem that is solved. We can grow food without fail and build the rail to get it to where it needs. We just don't because need does not match profit expectation. There are talks of building nuclear power for some data centers, but such talk would not happen for normal households.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]People definitely underestimate how cooperative big tech is relative to every other business mostly because big tech has a lot of money and very few expenses so friction is relatively a bigger bottle neck than almost any other industry. So I still think that pressuring openAi into green energy is easier than pressuring Volvo (or any manufacturer) which already is really brittle and has huge negotiation leverage in the form of jobs it provides.
Take a look at any other business niche and no one's comitting to green energy other than big tech. As you said yourself no other niche want to build their own nuclear reactors to satisfy their own green energy need.
I think its OK to hate on big tech because they're billionaires but people really lose sight here and complain about wrong things that distract from real much bigger issues and paints the entire movement as idiots.
