irmadlad@lemmy.worldWorst thing for the environment since cars
…and yet, we get in our cars and go to work, play, vacations, and never think much about it. Economies would crash if there weren’t necessary means of transportation. I don’t disagree that cars are pollutive, even tho we have made great advances in controlling and mitigating a lot of the pollutive aspects, and I don’t deny that AI contributes to carbon emissions. Which is why I keep saying that AI needs heavy regulation, much like we did with the early years of automobiles to present day. Another consideration is that the internet displaces carbon emissions with people who work remotely at home, streaming vs physical media being produced, etc.
It’s better than billions underreacting
Oh, it is always wise to educate yourself, take steps to mitigate pollutive aspects in our lives. But I don’t think that throwing the AI baby out with the bath water is conducive, much like we’re not going to stop using transportation. So in order to get the best of both worlds, there must be regulation, as much as I dislike regulation.
So, like transportation, AI isn’t going away. There must be regulation. For example: If company xyz runs an AI data center, it must be powered by renewable energy sources by x %. And why not extend that to all data centers? During COVID, about 557 million workers, or 17.4% of global employment, worked from home. COVID should have been an eyeopener globally. Skies over cities cleared somewhat and in some instances, significantly. Animals returned to their native habitats in the absence of humans. We have the technology to do better. We are just greedy and shortsighted.
Epp@lemmus.org 1 day ago
I feel the same way about video games. I love them, but I know it’s needlessly sucking away electricity just to entertain me. Not to mention the electricity used by the developers, artists, sound designers, composers, etc to create the game in the first place. They’re even worse for the environment than AI. And even if you ignore all that, they serve no purpose outside of the frivolity that is entertainment.
The worst part is that no one ever points it out. They’re all hyper-focused on AI to realize that video games are far more destructive, and have been for decades. With AI, at least, the productivity gains can be harnessed by taxing corporations that utilize it, to fund Universal Basic Income so everyone benefits, but there’s no productivity gains with video games - just productivity loss.
Oh well, I personally don’t think society will survive another decade, so I’m just going to enjoy my video games, and create more video games using AI, because my actions are a tiny drop in an overwhelmingly massive bucket I can’t even see the other side of.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
…no. Likely not even close. You’re really saying that the likely ~10% of the world population playing video games an hour a day on average (admitted total guess but it cannot be super high) is going to exceed a technology that is getting shoehorned into literally everything? You cannot even search the internet anymore without these GPUs heating up to run AI for you whether you want it or not. Web searches are something any connected person does. You can hardly type a sentence these days without AI software running in the back. And that’s all only going to increase.
If the attitude is “fuck it we’re doomed regardless” then there’s no societal problem anyone can convince you to care about. I feel that way too sometimes but it really isn’t helping anything. It might be hard to contain that feeling for you, but I hope that changes. It overwhelms me a lot too. But I do hope we can fight that feeling off long enough to turn some key things around. The only hope we’ve got is to fight that fight.
Epp@lemmus.org 1 day ago
Yes, video games as a technology are worse for the environment than AI as a technology. I think you don’t believe me because you’re conflating the technology of AI with the data centers being built for the express purpose of AI. Those data centers are much worse for the environment than video games, yes, but they aren’t necessary to have AI. AI can be performed using a fraction of the hardware used to play video games. I am very, VERY opposed to data centers, but I’m a huge proponent of both games and AI. So I’m being pedantic to make a point.
Thank you. I hope it changes, too. I’m just waiting impatiently for the Big Beautiful Day when I can read that Big Beautiful Obituary, and pop open a bottle of champagne and try to rebuild my hope for the future.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Does that matter if a thousand billionaires are building those based upon investors being convinced of the precise opposite? I’m not even sure what the truth is but it seems not all that important since I don’t get to decide what gets built. What I can do is have tiny influence on the people I speak to. I can make them aware of the problem and maybe that can bubble up to a larger understanding if enough people spread that awareness also.
jaybone@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
What are you smoking?
Where did you come up with the numbers to back up this fantasy land you are painting?
Epp@lemmus.org 1 day ago
You can cherry pick the numbers in either direction technically - you can operate an LLM without a GPU to make the AI power usage really low, and you can play a game with only basic 2D visuals that has low power usage.
However, the ideal in both cases will fully utilize a high powered GPU, so it’s a wash. During the day my GPU is answering prompts using the Qwen 3.6 LLM, and at night it’s ray-tracing in Cyberpunk 2077. In both cases it’s using a ton of power, but in only one of those two scenarios is it actually producing anything of value.