Save The Planet
-
Honestly, all of this is really interesting. It's a whole side of humanity that I very much do NOT think about or follow. I previously spent the last decade much, much, too busy stomping through the forest, so I really didn't follow anything during that time. A new game or phone came out? sure, cool, I might look that up. When I finally emerged from the fens, sodden and fly-bitten, I was very much out of the loop, despite the algorithm trying to cram articles about NFTs, crypto etc., down my throat. I actually tend to avoid tech stuff because it's too much of a learning curve at this point. I get the fundamentals, but beyond that I don't dig in.
I agree with you on the bubble - it depends on the size. I guess my original take is how could it actually get bigger than it is? I just don't see how it can scale beyond begin in phones or used in basic data analysis/like another google. The AIs can definitely get more advanced, sure, but with that should come some sort of efficiency. We're also seemingly on the cusp of quantum computing, which I imagine would reduce power requirements.
Meanwhile (and not to detract from the environmental concerns AI could pose) we have very, very real and very, very large environmental concerns that need addressing. Millions of cubic metres of sulphur are sitting in stockpiles in northern Alberta, and threatening the Athabasca river. That's not even close to the top of the list of things we need to focus on before we can get out in front of the damage AI can cause.
We're in a real mess.
The AIs can definitely get more advanced, sure, but with that should come some sort of efficiency.
This is what AI researchers/pundits believed until roughly 2020, when it was discovered you could brute force your way to have more advanced AIs (so-called "scaling laws") just by massively scaling up existing algorithms. That's essentially what tech companies have been doing ever since. Nobody knows what the limit on this is going to be, but as far as I know nobody has any good evidence to suggest that we're near the limit of what's going to be possible with scaling.
We’re also seemingly on the cusp of quantum computing, which I imagine would reduce power requirements.
Quantum computing is not faster than regular computers. Quantum computing has efficiency advantages for some particular algorithms, such as breaking certain types of encryption. As far as I'm aware, nobody is really looking to replace computers with quantum computers in general. Even if they did, I don't think anyone has thought of a way to accelerate AI using quantum computing. Even if there were a way to, it would presumably require quantum computers like, 15 orders of magnitude more powerful than the ones we have today.
We have very, very real and very, very large environmental concerns that need addressing.
Yeah. I don't think AI is really at the highest level of concern for environmental impact, especially since it is looking plausible it will lead to investing in nuclear power, which would be a net positive IMO. (Coolant could still be an issue though.)
-
This post did not contain any content.
Could someone please help me save some power and just post the image with the 5tits so I don't need to have it regenerated de novo?
-
Worse is Google that insists on shoving a terrible AI-based result in your face every time you do a search, with no way to turn it off.
I'm not telling these systems to generate images of cow-like girls, but I'm getting AI shoved in my face all the time whether I want it or not. (I don't).
Piling on to the google alternatives heap: https://searx.space/
You can pick a public instance of searxng and choose which engines it queries by going to the setting cog, then Engines. A few of these public instances I've checked out have only google enabled, though, so you really do need to check the settings.
If you want to add a searxng instance as your default engine and your browser doesn't automatically do it, the URL for that is:
https://<searxng_url>/search?q=%sI have to add this manually for things like ironfox/firefox mobile.
-
The AIs can definitely get more advanced, sure, but with that should come some sort of efficiency.
This is what AI researchers/pundits believed until roughly 2020, when it was discovered you could brute force your way to have more advanced AIs (so-called "scaling laws") just by massively scaling up existing algorithms. That's essentially what tech companies have been doing ever since. Nobody knows what the limit on this is going to be, but as far as I know nobody has any good evidence to suggest that we're near the limit of what's going to be possible with scaling.
We’re also seemingly on the cusp of quantum computing, which I imagine would reduce power requirements.
Quantum computing is not faster than regular computers. Quantum computing has efficiency advantages for some particular algorithms, such as breaking certain types of encryption. As far as I'm aware, nobody is really looking to replace computers with quantum computers in general. Even if they did, I don't think anyone has thought of a way to accelerate AI using quantum computing. Even if there were a way to, it would presumably require quantum computers like, 15 orders of magnitude more powerful than the ones we have today.
We have very, very real and very, very large environmental concerns that need addressing.
Yeah. I don't think AI is really at the highest level of concern for environmental impact, especially since it is looking plausible it will lead to investing in nuclear power, which would be a net positive IMO. (Coolant could still be an issue though.)
How do they brute force their way to a better algorithm? Just trial and error? How do they check outcomes to determine that their new model is good?
I don't expect you to answer those musings - you've been more than patient with me.
Honestly, I'm a tree hugger, and the fact that we aren't going for nuclear simply because of smear campaigns and changes in public opinion is insanity. We already treat some mining wastes in perpetuity, or plan to have them entombed for the rest of time - how is nuclear waste any different?
-
That's a good point. I rescind my argument that training is necessarily more expensive than sum-of-all-deployment.
I still think people overestimate the power draw of AI though, because they're not dividing it by the overall usage of AI. If people started playing high-end video games at the same rate AI is being used, the power usage might be comparable, but it wouldn't mean that an individual playing a video game is suddenly worse for the environment than it was before. However, it doesn't really matter, since ultimately the environmental impact depends only on the total amount of power (and coolant) used, and where that power comes from (could be coal, could be nuclear, could be hydro).
You're absolutely right that the environmental impact depends on the source of the energy, and less obviously, by the displaced demand that now has to seek energy from less clean sources. Ideally we should have lots of clean energy, but unfortunately we often don't, and even when AI uses clean sources, they're often just forcing preexisting load elsewhere. If we can start investing in power infrastructure projects at the national (or state/province level) then maybe it wouldn't be so bad, but it never happens at a scale that we need.
I think the argument isn't the environmental impact alone, it's the judgement about the net benefit of both the environmental impact and the product produced. I think the statement is "we spent all this power, and for what? Some cats with tits and an absolutely destroyed labour market. Not worth the cost"
Especially because it's a cost that the users of AI are forcing everyone to pay. Privatize profits, socialize losses, and all that. -
It's literally the same thing, the obvious difference is how much usage it's getting at a time per gpu, but everyone seems to assume all these data centers are running at full load at all times for some reason?
It's explicitly and literally not the same thing.
-
All of them at their disposal, we should get rid of all tools
Running a concept to its extreme just to try and dismiss it to sound smart is an entire damn logical fallacy. Why are you insisting on using fallacies that brainless morons use?
Have you never heard of a straw man fallacy? That's you. That's what you're doing.
-
You're absolutely right that the environmental impact depends on the source of the energy, and less obviously, by the displaced demand that now has to seek energy from less clean sources. Ideally we should have lots of clean energy, but unfortunately we often don't, and even when AI uses clean sources, they're often just forcing preexisting load elsewhere. If we can start investing in power infrastructure projects at the national (or state/province level) then maybe it wouldn't be so bad, but it never happens at a scale that we need.
I think the argument isn't the environmental impact alone, it's the judgement about the net benefit of both the environmental impact and the product produced. I think the statement is "we spent all this power, and for what? Some cats with tits and an absolutely destroyed labour market. Not worth the cost"
Especially because it's a cost that the users of AI are forcing everyone to pay. Privatize profits, socialize losses, and all that.I think a different way to look at what you've brought up in the second paragraph is that people are angry and talking about the power usage because the dislike AI, not the other way around. It doesn't really make sense for people to be angry about the power usage of AI if the power usage had no environmental impact.
-
How do they brute force their way to a better algorithm? Just trial and error? How do they check outcomes to determine that their new model is good?
I don't expect you to answer those musings - you've been more than patient with me.
Honestly, I'm a tree hugger, and the fact that we aren't going for nuclear simply because of smear campaigns and changes in public opinion is insanity. We already treat some mining wastes in perpetuity, or plan to have them entombed for the rest of time - how is nuclear waste any different?
It's not brute-force to a better algorithm per se. It's the same algorithm, exactly as "stupid," just with more force (more numerous and powerful GPUs) running it.
Three are benchmarks to check if the model is "good" -- for instance, how well the model does on standardized tests similar to SATs (researchers are very careful to ensure that the questions do not appear on the internet anywhere, so that the model can't just memorize the answers.)
-
I had my energy company remove their LVTC smart meter this week after they started using it to shut off our condenser unit during our 100 degree days
The fact that it exists at all is bad enough, but they were doing this at a time when our AC was already malfunctioning due to low refrigerant. On the day they first shut it off, our house reached 94 degrees.
The program that the previous owner signed up for that enabled them to do this gave them a fucking two dollar a month discount.
I use a smart thermostat to optimize my home conditioning - having a second meter fucking with my schedule ends up making us all miserable. Energy providers need to stop fucking around and just build out their infrastructure to handle worst case peak loads, and enable customers to install solar to reduce peak loading to begin with.
The other thing that kills me about this is that our provider administers our city's solar electric subsidy program themselves. When i had them come out to give us a quote, they inflated their price by more than 100% because they knew what our electricity bill was. All they did was take our average monthly bill and multiplied it by the repayment period. I could have been providing them more energy to the grid at their peak load if they hadn't tried scamming me.
FUCK private energy providers.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Smart meters with this ability are great, when done well. Without them they have the ability to turn off all of your power if they need to. If they can't keep up with demand, they have to turn things off. It's better for them to have the ability to shut off a few appliances or decrease your AC usage rather than shut people down entirely.
People always complain that they don't want to give the energy company power over their electricity, but they already do. However, without this their power is total, and only total. With it they can moderate it. It's better if everyone has a smart meter instead of only people who care about others, and greedy people only look out for themselves.
I agree though, fuck private providers.
-
Running a concept to its extreme just to try and dismiss it to sound smart is an entire damn logical fallacy. Why are you insisting on using fallacies that brainless morons use?
Have you never heard of a straw man fallacy? That's you. That's what you're doing.
So mad at a joke
-
It's explicitly and literally not the same thing.
The highest likelihood is you have literally no idea how any of this works and are just joining the crowd of AI bad because energy usage and have done zero research or hands on knowledge of how these tools actually work.
-
I think a different way to look at what you've brought up in the second paragraph is that people are angry and talking about the power usage because the dislike AI, not the other way around. It doesn't really make sense for people to be angry about the power usage of AI if the power usage had no environmental impact.
I agree, although I think that phrasing it as "dislike" does a disservice to the legitimate grievances.
To give it a more nuanced spin, it's not so much about disliking one because of the other, it's about taking everything together. The power usage is just one more grievance, exacerbating opinions on AI.I think the reason that power usage comes up a lot is because it's easy to discuss, while talking about it through the lens of economics or communal good can easily get derailed.
-
Smart meters with this ability are great, when done well. Without them they have the ability to turn off all of your power if they need to. If they can't keep up with demand, they have to turn things off. It's better for them to have the ability to shut off a few appliances or decrease your AC usage rather than shut people down entirely.
People always complain that they don't want to give the energy company power over their electricity, but they already do. However, without this their power is total, and only total. With it they can moderate it. It's better if everyone has a smart meter instead of only people who care about others, and greedy people only look out for themselves.
I agree though, fuck private providers.
I agree though, fuck private providers
If it was a public utility i'd feel very differently.
-
I agree, although I think that phrasing it as "dislike" does a disservice to the legitimate grievances.
To give it a more nuanced spin, it's not so much about disliking one because of the other, it's about taking everything together. The power usage is just one more grievance, exacerbating opinions on AI.I think the reason that power usage comes up a lot is because it's easy to discuss, while talking about it through the lens of economics or communal good can easily get derailed.
fair enough, my habit is to go for relatively neutral words such as "dislike" to encapsulate a broader spectrum of people.
-
Meanwhile I'm down town I'm my city cleaning windows in office buildings that are 75% empty but the heat or ac is blasting on completely empty floors and most of the lights are on.
The HVAC does serve a purpose, it reduces the moisture in the building, which would otherwise ruin the building
-
This post did not contain any content.
Conservation work can be confusing I guess
-
Firefox has a plugin that blocks the AI results. It works pretty well most of the time, but it occasionally has hiccups when Google updates stuff or something.
I'll have to look for this, thanks!
-
I'll have to look for this, thanks!
I have to look stuff up for medical school (usually trying to find studies and whatnot) so the gemini results are just obnoxious garbage to me.
-
So mad at a joke
Still dodging any actual point. Have fun being too stupid to actually engage with a discussion. Genuinely pitiful of you.
