The massive computer clusters powering artificial intelligence consume vast quantities to answer the world’s queries, but how is Big Tech redressing the balance?

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

  • XIIIesq@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1120·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • pyre@lemmy.worldEnglish
      261·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • XIIIesq@lemmy.worldEnglish
        417·
        3 days ago

        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.

        • frayedpickles@lemmy.cafeEnglish
          101·
          3 days ago

          And why do you think those improvements happen?

          Is it (a) unchecked capitalism or (b) regulations?

          • areyouevenreal@lemm.eeEnglish
            3·
            2 days ago

            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.

          • XIIIesq@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            3 days ago

            Is the insinuation here that the AI industry is unregulated? Because I’m not against regulations that would drive these improvements.

        • pyre@lemmy.worldEnglish
          12·
          3 days ago

          i think you’re not thinking about what efficiency means for corporations.

          • XIIIesq@lemmy.worldEnglish
            22·
            3 days ago

            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.

    • lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      52·
      3 days ago

      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).