Generative AI’s environmental costs are soaring — and mostly secret
nature.com
one assessment suggests that ChatGPT, the chatbot created by OpenAI in San Francisco, California, is already consuming the energy of 33,000 homes. It’s estimated that a search driven by generative AI uses four to five times the energy of a conventional web search. Within years, large AI systems are likely to need as much energy as entire nations.
You are viewing a single comment
Oh, well as long as it save you from Googling it's okay that it's a massive ecological disaster. My mistake.
That's the opposite of what he said. That sort of usage isn't what ChatGPT is good for, it's best to use it for other kinds of things.
It's best to not use it. At all.
Feel free not to, I guess. But again, that wasn't the point of my comment. You mistook bleistift2's statement in the opposite way it was intended. ChatGPT's not intended as a replacement for a search engine so evaluating it on that basis is misleading.
That's just like... your opinion, man.
AI is going to be an important tool in the future. Decrying it as bad is similar to folks saying investing in green energy was stupid because without economies of scale they were expensive and inefficient.
Computers are using more energy. Instead of turning them off, let's find ways to produce energy less destructively, such as nuclear which would benefit EVs and all energy usage.
The future for the people who aren't dying of thirst due to the lack of water?
Did you even read the rest of my post?
The part where you suggested using nuclear energy? Which also uses a huge amount of fresh water?
Yes, I read it. I chose not to mention it since I didn't want to show that you were making my point stronger for me, but you forced my hand.
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2014/08/ew3-freshwater-use-by-us-power-plants-exec-sum.pdf
Then solar. Wind. Geothermal. Whatever. Energy usage is never, ever going down unless population does and probably not even then. If that silicon isn't used for AI it'll be something else. Then what?
Ah, you're one of the 'we shouldn't do anything about ecological disasters because something else will come along and make things just as bad anyway' crowd. I hear that's the latest right-wing school of thought now that it's almost impossible to deny climate change is happening.
What's your plan, everyone just turn back the wheel of time and homestead and grow potatoes and leave technology behind? Because regressiveness is a lynchpin of right-wing thought, too.
I don't think either of us are served by attacking each other, but we can dance if you want to, we can leave your friends behind, 'cause your friends can't... Oh sorry I got distracted.
Yes. The only two options are let companies like OpenAI use ridiculous amounts of energy and fresh water or we all live like it's the 19th century.
There are no other options. Certainly not something like, say, stop these AI companies from doing that and if they can't find a better solution, too bad.
Why AI specifically? Like I said that silicon will still be used for something else. So your argument isn't supporting your thesis. You don't care if AI is useful. You don't care if it enables and uplifts people or helps make scientific discoveries. You don't care if this is a stepping stone to greater efficiency over a broader scope.
It's specifically energy used for AI that is bad and there is no rescuing it. This isn't about the energy or water. This is about you hate AI and any angle you can find to attack it is good. Seems disingenuous to me. But also a waste of time because you don't actually want to hear energy solutions, you just want to stop AI. And that's fine, but you're jerking everyone's chain when you argue it's about the environment because of that could be solved you'd still hate it.
Yes, again, I have heard the "we shouldn't do anything about an ecological disaster because something else will come along that will be bad too" argument before. It doesn't wash.
Please demonstrate that to be true. Unless it's a lie. Is it a lie?
33,000 households worth of electricity is not a "ridiculous amount of energy." It's actually quite modest. Your wild hyperbole doesn't help your case.
You have a very strange definition of 'modest.' Because I would say one household's worth of electricity is modest and 33,000 is a fuckload. Or did I miss something and we're running houses off of AA batteries these days?
I mean an argument could be made here, right? Just thinking theoretically.
Maxim: we want to be as eco-friendly as possible.
Per a given task, understand the least environmentally-taxing way to accomplish the goal.
Task requires one, two, or three/four DuckDuckGo searches? DDG away.
Task requires five DDG searches, OR one LLM query? Language model it is.
(LLM may well rarely be the answer there, of course, just laying out the theory!)