- cross-posted to:
- fuck_ai@lemmy.world
- climate@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- fuck_ai@lemmy.world
- climate@slrpnk.net
Writing a 100-word email using ChatGPT (GPT-4, latest model) consumes 1 x 500ml bottle of water It uses 140Wh of energy, enough for 7 full charges of an iPhone Pro Max
I don’t understand the hate for AI. It’s a new technology that has some teething issues, but it’s only going to get better and more efficient.
it won’t if you don’t force it to. that’s like saying companies will pollute less if you give them enough time. no, you have to grab their balls and force them to do it.
I think it’s fair to say that pretty much every industry is more efficient and cleaner than it used to be and I don’t see why AI would be an exception to that.
And why do you think those improvements happen?
Is it (a) unchecked capitalism or (b) regulations?
Mainly because energy and data centers are both expensive and companies want to use as little as possible of both - especially on the energy side. OpenAI isn’t exactly profitable. There is a reason companies like Microsoft release smaller models like Phi-2 that can be run on individual devices rather than data centers.
Is the insinuation here that the AI industry is unregulated? Because I’m not against regulations that would drive these improvements.
i think you’re not thinking about what efficiency means for corporations.
I think it’s exactly what I’m thinking about, unless I’m missing something specific that you’d like to put forward?
If I own a bottled drinks company and the energy cost is 10p a bottle but a new, more efficient process is invented that would lower my energy cost to 5p a bottle, that’s going to be looking like a wise investment to make. A few pence over several thousand products adds up pretty quickly.
I could either pocket the difference as extra profit, lower my unit price to the consumer to make my product more competitive in the market, or a bit of both.
Until it does, we shouldn’t exacerbate the climate and resource issues we already have by blindly buying into the hype and building more and larger corporate-scale power gluttons to produce even more heat than we’re already dealing with.
“AI” has potential, ideas like machine assistance with writing letters and improving security by augmenting human alertness are all nice. Unfortunately, it also has destructive potential for things like surveillance, even deadlier weapons or accelerating the wealth extraction of those with the capital to invest in building aforementioned power gluttons.
Additionally, it risks misuse and overreliance, which is particularly dangerous in the current stage where it can’t entirely replace humans (yet), the issues of which may not immediately become apparent until they do damage.
If and until the abilities of AI reach the point where they can compensate tech illiteracy and we no longer need to worry about the exorbitant heat production, it shouldn’t be deployed at scale at all, and even then its use needs to be scrutinised, regulated and that regulation is appropriately enforced (which basically requires significant social and political change, so good luck).
Why wouldn’t you deploy that kind of AI at scale?
To be honest I think people keep forgetting that AI strong enough would be smarter than a human, and would probably end up deploying us at scale rather than the other way around. Terminator could one day actually happen. I am not even sure that would be a bad thing given how flawed humans are.
General AI might be, but the type of “AI” we have right now isn’t general, isn’t smarter, it’s just a really expensive imitation engine that people keep mistaking for actual intelligence.
And the energy consumption and heat production are really not what our global situation needs right now.
AGI and ASI are what I am referring to. Of course we don’t actually have that right now, I never claimed we did.
It is hilarious and insulting you trying to “erm actually” me when I literally work in this field doing research on uses of current gen ML/AI models. Go fuck yourself.
I was talking about the currently available technology though, its inefficiency, and the danger of tech illiteracy leading to overreliance on tools that aren’t quite so “smart” yet to warrant that reliance.
I agree with your sentiment that it may well some day reach that point. If it does and the energy consumption is no longer an active concern, I do see how it could justifiably be deployed at scale.
But we also agree that “we don’t actually have that right now”, and with what we do have, I don’t think it’s reasonable. I’m happy to debate that point civilly, if you’re interested in that.
And how would I know that? Everyone on the Internet is an expert, how would I come to assume you’re actually one? Given the misunderstanding outlined above, I assumed you were conflating the (topical) current models with the (hypothetical) future ones.
There is no need for such hostility. I meant no insult, I just misunderstood what you were talking about and sought to correct a common misconception. Seeing how the Internet is already full of vitriol, I think we’d all do each other a favour if we tried applying Hanlon’s Razor more often and look for explanations of human error instead of concluding malice.
I hope you have a wonderful week, and good luck with your ongoing research!
deleted by creator
This is the most pedantic reply so far.