- cross-posted to:
- hackernews
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s fucking insane how much is invested (both money and natural resources) in the emperor’s new clothes. Let’s scorch the planet because every idiot out there buys into the marketing and hype. We are utterly and truly doomed because of ourselves.
Future generations will look back on the pre apocalypse population and call us sleep walkers. I know, as I’m one of them. Life is difficult enough already without jeopardising my freedom as the only way to change our course is violence at this point.
the only way to change our course is violence at this point.
Sadly, yes.
AI and the investment around it are literally the only thing holding up America’s economy right now. If you take the artificial growth and the vast amounts of investment that are being pumped in AI development data centers, the US economy has barely grown half percentage point.
No surprise that they are going to power this beast at all costs until it falls apart along with the US economy.
Well, I mean it’s not all marketing and hype. I was able to get it to write a piece of code to scrape a RSS feed and email me if it met certain perameters. I couldn’t have done that without a real grind / if at all. This is effectively the only time I’ve used it, and I think it’s atrocious the amount of petty shit people use it for… but there can be a functional benefit to generative AI. Makes me shed a tear thinking of the energy demand though.
People have been making web crawlers for the past 30 years. Why do you need to torch an acre of forest to do the same?
Lame story.
Looking forward the 2026 ESG reports of large companies that are so happy to embrace AI :)
I think you would have an easier time searching for those who didn’t.
I’m not into gold panning… though it’s not like all companies are using AI so much that it will transpire in their ESG. Now I now a couple that were so far very happily ignoring this source of carbon and, as far as I remember, it was not reported by the cloud providers either.
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell
Crash can’t come soon enough
The people can stay, it is the AI that has to go.
From a long term environmental standpoint that’s not at all clear cut.
We objectively have too many humans in our biosphere for our current rate of resource consumption and we should significantly drop the overall number.
However, our current standard of living is mostly the result of a shared economy where we pool and share our resources and have a shit ton of people working.
Right now neural network algorithms consume a lot of processing power and resources, but they also solve whole new classes of automations problems that computers haven’t been able to solve before.
If we actually want to maintain our standard of living and reduce the population size, we may very well need AI automation utilities. They can keep scaling down in size and power consumption in the way that a real human can’t.
If we actually want to maintain our standard of living and reduce the population size, we may very well need AI automation utilities. They can keep scaling down in size and power consumption in the way that a real human can’t.
Theoreticisizing LLM’s usefulness and resourcefulness doesn’t help you there. For now they are rather useless embaracingly inefficient resoucehogs existing purely because of the bubble. It’s a gamble at best, or a waste of resources and a degradation of human workforce at worst.
AI is not just LLMs, and it’s already revolutionized biotechnical engineering through things like alpha fold. Like I said, “AI”, as in neural network algorithms of which LLMs are just one example, are literally solving entirely new classes of problems that we simply could not solve before.
Stop this ecofascist shit.
We can support the current population, it’s just not profitable or popular to do so.
Birthrates naturally level off as societies develop. Many are already seeing negative growth.
Our current standard of living is mostly predicated on offshoring the suffering and waste to the global South, but even that could be comfortably leveled off if we weren’t living under Capitalism.
We don’t need large AI farms, we need empathy. The techbros will not save us.
They’re the ecofascist yet you’re the one saying “you’ll shit in the mud and you’ll like it”.
Birthrates lower partially thanks to higher standard of living, which are not sustainable for 7+ billions people.
Not that I think LLMs are going to help in any way, but every time someone mentions overpopulation, all the counter arguments I see are loads of anti system rhetoric with nothing to show for it.
You think soviet Russia was/current China is sustainable?
We can support the current population, it’s just not profitable or popular to do so.
If your solution ignores the nature of human psychology it’s not a solution, it’s a quixotic quest.
Our current standard of living is mostly predicated on offshoring the suffering and waste to the global South, but even that could be comfortably leveled off if we weren’t living under Capitalism.
Yes, and as their standard of living rises to meet ours, the whole human output becomes increasingly unsustainable.
We don’t need large AI farms, we need empathy. The techbros will not save us.
There is a more plausible path for neural networks to be involved in climate change solutions then their is for you to replace capitalism.
The rain of down votes on ur comments shows me that Lemmy has become every bit as much if not worse an echo chamber than reddit. Facts of the matter are humans are overcrowding the plant and gobbling up all the resources at an unsustainable rate. Human population DOES need to drop a bit of we are to use this planet long term, lest we spell our own doom in a few hundred years by picking this once beautiful planet to the bone.
my brother in christ what are you saying? you know that rich people are the biggest polluters?
you know how ai datacenters literally destroy our planet? and for what? these supposed automation tasks will not serve us. we will have mass poverty and more wealth concentrated into the hands of a habdful of tech bros. it’s the industrial revolution all over again.
the global south is suffering from our actions. and how do you define living standards? do you think a capital slave that works in deadly conditions will be happy becase now they have an iphone and access to electricity? No. a slave is still a slave.
my brother in christ what are you saying? you know that rich people are the biggest polluters?
Yes, and what do you think is happening as other countries rise out of poverty? We have way too many humans on this planet to support everyone having a middle class lifestyle.
you know how ai datacenters literally destroy our planet?
Yeah, right now. But if you tried to render 4k videos in 1990 it would also take a full data center and enormous amount of power, but computer chips can do this thing where they get smaller and orders of magnitude more efficient over time, which is how every single phone can do it on 5W of usb power today.
Lmao no
I’m sure that if AI could get to the state where it could even approach maybe doing those things, it will mesh very well with capitalism and we’d all benefit collectively. One of the core tenants of capitalism.
I hope someone drops you on your head again
Your issue is clearly with capitalism, and yet you’re brain deadly bitching about AI instead.
So we objectively have too large of a population, but not if we change our standard of living and you want AI to solve this problem not by reducing our standard of living but instead by reducing the population?
The ones advocating for corporate greed and AI are the same ones talking about a birth rate crisis. I guess they just want more proles to slave for them and damn the ones who die young in the process.
Fuck this timeline
Hooray for cancer, asthma and bronchitis! Make America Healthy Again. Lung health is like Karate – black is the best!
What doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger! Or chronically ill, but in a cool way, really.
deleted by creator
Now they just have to understand what sustainable means beyond it being a buzzword.
It doesn’t make any difference whether they use coal, nuclear, or renewables.
If they were using renewables the rest of us would need the coal generated power to keep the lights on.
Exactly, people don’t seem to realise that higher demand for energy means higher demand for all sources of energy including fussil fuels.
If doesn’t matter if this datacenter runs 100% on renewables if that means that the overall demand on the powergrid increases and now other clients that used to get (a higher percentage of) their power from renewable are getting it from coal, it’s just a green washing shift blame technique.
And the nuclear ?
You skipped it somehow.
you seem to have missed my point.
If humanity’s energy requirements without AI are x, and AI’s requirements are an additional y, then AI is reponsible for the worst energy sources up to the value of y.
I’m just pointing out the fact that you mention nuclear energy and then discarded it in your follow up.
deleted by creator
