Save The Planet
-
I know she's exaggerating but this post yet again underscores how nobody understands that it is training AI which is computationally expensive. Deployment of an AI model is a comparable power draw to running a high-end videogame. How can people hope to fight back against things they don't understand?
You thought blind anger came from well informed opinions?
-
I know she's exaggerating but this post yet again underscores how nobody understands that it is training AI which is computationally expensive. Deployment of an AI model is a comparable power draw to running a high-end videogame. How can people hope to fight back against things they don't understand?
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.
-
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.
You underestimate the number of people you wouldn't class as intelligent. If no one wanted massive trucks, they would have disappeared off the market within a couple of years because they wouldn't sell. They're ridiculous, inefficient hulks that basically no one really needs but they sell, so they continue being made.
-
I know she's exaggerating but this post yet again underscores how nobody understands that it is training AI which is computationally expensive. Deployment of an AI model is a comparable power draw to running a high-end videogame. How can people hope to fight back against things they don't understand?
I mean, continued use of AI encourages the training of new models. If nobody used the image generators, they wouldn't keep trying to make better ones.
-
Do you think "having tourism" would do more damage than "not having tourism"? Because that's what we're really comparing here. Tourism may be a net negative, but if the absence of tourism is a bigger net negative, well, I'd argue that "having tourism" is the better option.
Obviously making tourism into a net positive should be the goal, but that's a whole different discussion (which your idea of "educational holidays" probably fits into). But I don't think we get there with a blanket ban on most forms of air travel. Not to mention, making air travel more efficient/greener would have huge ripple effects across multiple industries. That seems like a no-brainer approach to me, at least in the long term.
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.
-
There is this system where we can compare the relative value of an activity and its relative impact on other activities. It's called prices. When you let them work correctly you don't have to guilt people.
This could be true if the damage of carbon emissions and water use were actually priced in. But they are not, the entire society will bear those costs.
-
there is so much rage today. why don't we uh, destroy them with facts and logic
Hahaha at this point even facts and logic is a rage inducing argument. "My facts" vs "Your facts"
-
Your HA dashboard derailed this conversation for me. lol.
I would love to know more about the equipment you are using to push this info into your HA.
-
A lot of things are solved, but capitalism means that we need a profit motive to act. World hunger is another good example. We know how to make fertilizer and how to genetically alter crops to ensure we never have a crop failure. We have trains and refrigeration to take food anywhere we want. Pretty much any box that we need to check to solve this problem has been. The places that have food problems largely have to do with poverty, which at this point is a polite way to say "I won't make money, so I am okay with them starving"
Im not sure what's the point here? If we dont like LLMs and data centers using power then we use existing strategies that work like taxing their power use and subsidizing household power use which btw we're already doing almost everywhere around the world in some form or another.
The data centers are actually easier to negotiate and work with than something like factories or households where energy margins are much more brittle. Datacenter employs like 5 people and you can squeeze with policy to match social expectations - you can't do that with factories or households. So datacenter energy problem is not that difficult relatively speaking.
-
In moderate climates in the US, peak loads are typically the hottest and sunniest hours of the day since condenser units are the most energy-hungry appliance in most homes. Clouds notwithstanding, peak solar generation would typically align (or closely align) with peak load time.
Batteries would also help a lot - they should definitely be subsidizing the installation of those as well but unfortunately they aren't yet (at least not in my state).
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. -
Where are you getting your false information. Its certainly not the most used. And, the reason it's used at all is from advertising and ownership of the media by the billionaire class to shove the gibbity in our faces at every waking moment so people use it. They're losing money like never before on ai.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]This level of collective delusion is crazy. I don't think any amount of stats will change your mind so you're clearly argueing in bad faith but sure:
https://explodingtopics.com/blog/chatgpt-users says 5.2B monthly visits compared to Facebook 12.7 and Instagram's 7.5. Chatgpt is literally bigger than X.com already. Thats just one tool and LLM's have direct integrations in phones and other apps.
I really don't understand what's the point of purposefully lying here? We can all hate billionaires together without the need for this weird anti-intellectual bullshit.
-
I mean, continued use of AI encourages the training of new models. If nobody used the image generators, they wouldn't keep trying to make better ones.
you are correct, and also not in any way disagreeing with me.
-
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.
really depends. You can locally host an LLM on a typical gaming computer.
-
You underestimate the number of people you wouldn't class as intelligent. If no one wanted massive trucks, they would have disappeared off the market within a couple of years because they wouldn't sell. They're ridiculous, inefficient hulks that basically no one really needs but they sell, so they continue being made.
It's actually because small trucks were regulated out of the US market. Smaller vehicles have more stringent mileage standards that trucks aren't able to meet. That forces companies to make all their trucks bigger, because bigger vehicles are held to a different standard.
So the people who want or need a truck are pushed to buy a larger one.
-
This curve has changed somewhat since this study in 2016. More efficient home insulation, remote working, and energy-efficient cooling systems have large impact in this pattern. But assuming you have a well-insulated home, setting your thermostat to maintain a consistent temperature throughout the day will shift this peak earlier and lower the peak load at sunset, when many people are returning home. More efficient heat pumps with variable pressure capabilities also helps this a lot, too.
Given just how many variables are involved, it's better to assume peak cooling load to be mid-day and work toward equalizing that curve, rather than reacting to transient patterns that are subject to changes in customer behavior. Solar installations are just one aspect of this mitigation strategy, along with energy storage, energy-efficient cooling systems, and more efficient insulation and solar heat gain mitigation strategies.
If we're discussing infrastructure improvements we might as well discuss home efficiency improvements as well.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Do you have a source for the cooling off effect of the duck curve?
Following is a 2 year old article hinting an increase in the effect https://www.powermag.com/epri-head-duck-curve-now-looks-like-a-canyon/ afaik it hasn't changed much but I'm open to news
-
79 is like my ideal temp. Cities must love me.
My parents would love you.
I don't even want to go to their house in the summer. I can't even think at that temperature.
-
Im not sure what's the point here? If we dont like LLMs and data centers using power then we use existing strategies that work like taxing their power use and subsidizing household power use which btw we're already doing almost everywhere around the world in some form or another.
The data centers are actually easier to negotiate and work with than something like factories or households where energy margins are much more brittle. Datacenter employs like 5 people and you can squeeze with policy to match social expectations - you can't do that with factories or households. So datacenter energy problem is not that difficult relatively speaking.
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.
-
I know she's exaggerating but this post yet again underscores how nobody understands that it is training AI which is computationally expensive. Deployment of an AI model is a comparable power draw to running a high-end videogame. How can people hope to fight back against things they don't understand?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]She's not exaggerating, if anything she's undercounting the number of tits.
-
really depends. You can locally host an LLM on a typical gaming computer.
You can, but that's not the kind of LLM the meme is talking about. It's about the big LLMs hosted by large companies.
-
really depends. You can locally host an LLM on a typical gaming computer.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Well that's sort of half right. Yes you can run the smaller models locally, but usually it's the bigger models that we want to use. It would also be very slow on a typical gaming computer and even a high end gaming computer. To make it go faster not only is the hardware used in datacenters more optimised for the task, it's also a lot faster. This is both a speed increase per unit as well as more units being used than you would normally find in a gaming PC.
Now these things aren't magic, the basic technology is the same, so where does the speed come from? The answer is raw power, these things run insane amounts of power through them, with specialised cooling systems to keep them cool. This comes at the cost of efficiency.
So whilst running a model is much cheaper compared to training a model, it is far from free. And whilst you can run a smaller model on your home PC, it isn't directly comparable to how it's used in the datacenter. So the use of AI is still very power hungry, even when not counting the training.
