Save The Planet
-
When I’m told there’s power issues and to conserve power I drop my AC to 60 and leave all my lights on. Only way for them to fix the grid is to break it.
wow based
-
Because they want the majority of the new chips for training models, not running the existing ones would be my assertion. Two different use cases
Sure, and that's why many cloud providers - even ones that don't train their own models - are only slowly onboarding new customers onto bigger models. Sure. Makes total sense.
-
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
I'm not really saying that the curve itself is changing (sorry, I was really not clear), only that those other variables reduce actual energy demand later in the day because of the efficiency gains and thermal banking that happens during the peak energy production. The overproduction during max solar hours is still a problem. Even if the utility doesn't have a way of banking the extra supply, individual customers can do it themselves at a smaller scale, even if just by over-cooling their homes to reduce their demand after sundown.
Overall, the problem of the duck curve isn't as much about maxing out the grid, it's about the utility not having instantaneous power availability when the sun suddenly goes down. For people like me who work from home and have the flexibility to keep my home cool enough to need less cooling in the evening, having solar power means I can take advantage of that free energy and bank it to reduce my demand in the evening.
I get what you were saying now, but having solar would absolutely reduce my demand during peak hours.
-
Didn't some legislation come out banning making laws against AI? (which I realize is a fucking crazy sentence in the first place- nothing besides rights should just get immunity to all potential new laws)
So the cities aren't even the bad guys here. The Senate is.
From what I can tell it got stripped from the Senate version that was just approved. They barely have the heads to pass it, so they aren't going to play volleyball to add it back.
-
the difference between demand and net demand in that graph is purely solar/wind generation, isn't it?
Essentially, yea. That, and reduced demand from people setting their thermostats to relax their cooling temps while they're away from home. We should honestly be grateful that we're able to produce so much more energy from solar than what we need for active cooling. It's a good problem to have.
-
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).
There is a way to "turn it off" with some search parameters. However there is no guarantee that the AI is not consuming resources at the backend.
-
Essentially, yea. That, and reduced demand from people setting their thermostats to relax their cooling temps while they're away from home. We should honestly be grateful that we're able to produce so much more energy from solar than what we need for active cooling. It's a good problem to have.
that thermostat factor reduces actual demand by a little, doesn't impact the net difference per se.
-
Sure, and that's why many cloud providers - even ones that don't train their own models - are only slowly onboarding new customers onto bigger models. Sure. Makes total sense.
I mean do you actually know or are you just assuming?
-
that thermostat factor reduces actual demand by a little, doesn't impact the net difference per se.
From the pov of the utility, sure. But in terms of absolute energy use it's possibly the only way to account for that fluctuation.
This is why this debate is so frustrating - producing energy from solar is of huge benefit, but instead of talking about how best to put that production to use, we're talking about the problem it creates for utilities who don't want to adapt to the distributed production.
-
There is a way to "turn it off" with some search parameters. However there is no guarantee that the AI is not consuming resources at the backend.
Also the search parameters are undocumented internal things that can change or be disabled at any time.
-
I have llama 3.2 on my phone and it's really funny because it's so low powered and dumb but so sweet.
it's like a little friend to talk to when I don't have Internet. he's a lil stupid but he got the spirit
That's cute!
-
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
Carlin had some good material, but this is an absolutely stupid mindset. We can cause an extreme level of ecological damage. Will the planet eventually recover? Quite possibly. But that's not a certainty, and in the mean time we're triggering a mass extinction precisely because irresponsible humans figure there's no way we can hurt the Earth and it's self-important hubris to think that we can.
But the time we're living through and the time we're heading into are all the proof we should need that it's actually hubris to assume our actions have no meaningful impact.
-
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).
I am trying to understand what Google's motivation for this even is. Surely it is not profitable to be replacing their existing, highly lucrative product with an inferior alternative that eats up way more power?
-
Carlin had some good material, but this is an absolutely stupid mindset. We can cause an extreme level of ecological damage. Will the planet eventually recover? Quite possibly. But that's not a certainty, and in the mean time we're triggering a mass extinction precisely because irresponsible humans figure there's no way we can hurt the Earth and it's self-important hubris to think that we can.
But the time we're living through and the time we're heading into are all the proof we should need that it's actually hubris to assume our actions have no meaningful impact.
We do have an impact but the earth will 100% be ok when we are dead and gone eventually. A million years ain't shit to the earth.
-
Carlin had some good material, but this is an absolutely stupid mindset. We can cause an extreme level of ecological damage. Will the planet eventually recover? Quite possibly. But that's not a certainty, and in the mean time we're triggering a mass extinction precisely because irresponsible humans figure there's no way we can hurt the Earth and it's self-important hubris to think that we can.
But the time we're living through and the time we're heading into are all the proof we should need that it's actually hubris to assume our actions have no meaningful impact.
We humans are a virus…a parasite and the earth will be better off once we are extinct.
-
Carlin had some good material, but this is an absolutely stupid mindset. We can cause an extreme level of ecological damage. Will the planet eventually recover? Quite possibly. But that's not a certainty, and in the mean time we're triggering a mass extinction precisely because irresponsible humans figure there's no way we can hurt the Earth and it's self-important hubris to think that we can.
But the time we're living through and the time we're heading into are all the proof we should need that it's actually hubris to assume our actions have no meaningful impact.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]
️ Immediate to Short-Term (Days to Centuries)- Hours to weeks: Power grids fail; nuclear reactors melt down without maintenance[11].
- Months to decades: Urban areas flood as drainage systems fail; buildings decay from weather and plant growth[6][11].
- 100–300 years: Steel structures collapse; concrete buildings crumble[5][7]. Most cities become overgrown forests[6].
Medium-Term (Thousands of Years)
- 1,000 years: Visible surface structures (e.g., roads, monuments) are buried or eroded. Plastics fragment but persist chemically[5][7].
- 10,000–250,000 years: Nuclear isotopes (e.g., plutonium-239) remain detectable in sediments and ice cores[7]. Mining tunnels fill with sediment but leave identifiable "industrial fossils"[7].
- 500,000 years: Microplastics and polymer layers in ocean sediments endure[5][10].
Long-Term (Millions of Years)
- 1–7 million years: Fossils of humans and domesticated animals persist. Geological strata show elevated carbon levels and mass extinction markers[4][8]. Deep mines and landfills remain as distinct layers[7][10].
- 50–100 million years: Continental drift subducts surface evidence; satellites decay or drift into space[3][10]. Only deep geological traces (e.g., mine shafts, isotope ratios) might endure[3][10].
- 250 million years: Next predicted mass extinction eradicates all mammals, including any remaining human traces[9].
Near-Permanent Traces
- Space artifacts: Lunar landers, Mars rovers, and Voyager probes persist for billions of years[3][10].
- Radio signals: Human broadcasts travel through space indefinitely at light speed[5].
Key Factors
- Detection likelihood: Aliens or future species could find traces for 100+ million years via deep geological analysis or space exploration[5][10].
- Total erasure: Requires Earth's destruction (e.g., solar expansion in 5 billion years)[10].
Citations:
[1] Human extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_extinction
[2] What If Humans Suddenly Went Extinct? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuOKTZISXhc
[3] How long would it take for all traces of humans to be gone? https://www.reddit.com/r/answers/comments/1azu120/how_long_would_it_take_for_all_traces_of_humans/
[4] What would happen to Earth if humans went extinct? https://www.livescience.com/earth-without-people.html
[5] How long before all human traces are wiped out? https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/2215950-how-long-before-all-human-traces-are-wiped-out/
[6] Vanishing Act: What Earth Will Look Like 100 Years After Humans Disappear - Brilliantio https://brilliantio.com/if-people-dissapeared-what-will-happen-to-earth-in-100-years/
[7] If humans became extinct, how long would it take for all ... https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/if-humans-became-extinct-how-long-would-it-take-for-all-traces-of-us-to-vanish
[8] Nature will need up to five million years to fill the gaps caused by man-made mass extinctions, study finds https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/mass-extinctions-five-million-years-nature-mammals-crisis-animal-plants-pnas-aarhus-a8585066.html
[9] Humans Will Go Extinct on Earth in 250 Million Years; Mass Extinction Will Occur Sooner if Burning Fossil Fuels Continues [Study] https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/49951/20240430/humans-will-go-extinct-earth-250-million-years-mass-extinction.htm
[10] How long would it take for all evidence of humanity to be ... https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/153618/how-long-would-it-take-for-all-evidence-of-humanity-to-be-erased-from-earth
[11] What Would Happen If Every Human On Earth Just Disappeared? https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/life-like-humans-suddenly-disappeared.html -
I am trying to understand what Google's motivation for this even is. Surely it is not profitable to be replacing their existing, highly lucrative product with an inferior alternative that eats up way more power?
Their motivation is always ads. The ai response is longer and takes time to read so more time looking at their ads. If the answer is sufficient, you might not even click away to the search result.
AI is a potential huge bonanza to search sites, letting them suck up the ad revenue that used to goto the search results
-
Are you interpreting my statement as being in favour of training AIs?
I'm interpreting your statement as "the damage is done so we might as well use it"
And I'm saying that using it causes them to train more AIs, which causes more damage. -
I'm interpreting your statement as "the damage is done so we might as well use it"
And I'm saying that using it causes them to train more AIs, which causes more damage.I agree with your second statement. You have misunderstood me. I am not saying the damage is done so we might as well use it. I am saying people don't understand that it is the training of AIs which is directly power-draining.
I don't understand why you think that my observation people are ignorant about how AIs work is somehow an endorsement that we should use AIs.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I wish for cloud genAI services to be pay per use in at least the electricity cost per run. It would turn the overblown hype over ChatGPT clones into a question of if it's really worth the operating cost. Right now it's all VC funded.
