this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59672 readers
3223 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The leap in emissions is largely due to energy-guzzling data centers and supply chain emissions necessary to power artificial intelligence (AI) systems such as Google’s Gemini and OpenAI’s ChatGPT. The report estimated that in 2023, Google’s data centers alone account for up to 10% of global data center electricity consumption. Their data center electricity and water consumption both increased 17% between 2022 and 2023.

Google released 14.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide just last year, 13% higher than the year before.

Climate scientists have shown concerns as Big Tech giants such as Google, Amazon and Microsoft continue to invest billons of dollars into AI.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nivenkos@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The answer is nuclear power.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Or at least not decommissioning old ones. A dollar invested into new solar or wind goes further than new nuclear right now, but we'll see if it tips more towards nuclear once the grid is a higher percentage intermittent and needs a lot more energy storage with it.

Modular nuclear reactors seem really cool though for replacing large long term generators like at construction or excavation sites.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

a lot of older nuclear plants were built in the 70s and 80s and those plants are going to be EOL even with extensions, unless we're going to extend the lifecycle of those a second time. They should probably be decommissioned, unfortunately.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago

I obviously don't know all the cases, but if extending the life a second time is cost comparable to renewables, yes we absolutely should do it.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Environmentalism aside, I think it's shitty that a company can waste so much energy on frivolous things anyway. Even if we were using more nuclear I still wouldn't want it going to generating more porn of three-breasted women

[–] androogee@midwest.social 0 points 4 months ago

Why did you pick the one positive use of AI?

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

Or how about cutting back on the idiotic and venal misuse of poorly-developed AI?

[–] gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The technology is promising, it's just not remotely ready for what they're trying to use it for, and may never be in its current iteration (transformer-based LLMs). Like, yes, an AI will probably eventually be able to read many articles from search and integrate that information together in a useful way, but right now it's almost as likely to just start making shit up halfway through and tell you to eat glue lmao.

The problem is that AI is the new corporate buzzword like web was back during the dot com bubble. The web did end up being massively successful, but it just wasn't ready for like 90% of what investors wanted from it back then.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago

Exactly what I meant by poorly-developed.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

there are still going to be a lot of people who need power though. Cutting the US of AI isn't going to magically remove coal plants from the grid, it's going to do nothing actually. We need to be building new plants, period.

We need to be transitioning to zero carbon as fast as possible, period, and even that isn't good enough. Moderating our energy consumption is vital. There is a cliff at the end of the road and business as usual means driving on down the road.

I am not saying that we need to turn off our lights and heating. I am saying that we first-worlders use a lot of power on frivolous things that we absolutely can live without.

[–] jorp@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think it's unfair to call it poorly-developed, the rush to market it and apply it in every corner is driven entirely by capitalist speculation, the engineers and scientists working on developing these systems are not to blame

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Are you happier with "inadequately-developed"?

In both cases I was referring to the fact we're letting the equivalent of a toddler run amok while being exploited by greedy capitalists and trained by fascists. It's a very smart toddler but that just makes things worse.

[–] jorp@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

oh yes I'm not excited about humans being replaced by bias amplifying machines with corporate morals