Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

The ugly truth behind ChatGPT: AI is guzzling resources at planet-eating rates

Despite its name, the infrastructure used by the “cloud” accounts for more global greenhouse emissions than commercial flights. In 2018, for instance, the 5bn YouTube hits for the viral song Despacito used the same amount of energy it would take to heat 40,000 US homes annually.

Large language models such as ChatGPT are some of the most energy-guzzling technologies of all. Research suggests, for instance, that about 700,000 litres of water could have been used to cool the machines that trained ChatGPT-3 at Microsoft’s data facilities.

Additionally, as these companies aim to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, they may opt to base their datacentres in regions with cheaper electricity, such as the southern US, potentially exacerbating water consumption issues in drier parts of the world.

Furthermore, while minerals such as lithium and cobalt are most commonly associated with batteries in the motor sector, they are also crucial for the batteries used in datacentres. The extraction process often involves significant water usage and can lead to pollution, undermining water security. The extraction of these minerals are also often linked to human rights violations and poor labour standards. Trying to achieve one climate goal of limiting our dependence on fossil fuels can compromise another goal, of ensuring everyone has a safe and accessible water supply.

Moreover, when significant energy resources are allocated to tech-related endeavours, it can lead to energy shortages for essential needs such as residential power supply. Recent data from the UK shows that the country’s outdated electricity network is holding back affordable housing projects.

In other words, policy needs to be designed not to pick sectors or technologies as “winners”, but to pick the willing by providing support that is conditional on companies moving in the right direction. Making disclosure of environmental practices and impacts a condition for government support could ensure greater transparency and accountability.

0ptimal ,

There are layers of wrong and stupid to this article.

Despite its name, the infrastructure used by the “cloud” accounts for more global greenhouse emissions than commercial flights.

"The cloud" accounts for something like 80% of the internet across the entire planet. I'd be curious what 80% of transportation infrastructure would end being in comparison... no takers? We're only comparing to (some) flights instead of, I dunno, the vast bulk of our fossil fuel powered transport infra?

In 2018, for instance, the 5bn YouTube hits for the viral song Despacito used the same amount of energy it would take to heat 40,000 US homes annually.

Oh no, the most popular song in the world used the same amount of energy as 40k homes in the US. The US probably has something in the range of a hundred million homes. The efficiency of computing equipment increases by a sizable percentage every single year, with the odds being good the same data could be served at 1/20th the cost today. So why aren't we talking about, say, heat pumps for those homes? You know, since they're still using the same amount of energy they did in 2018?

...about 700,000 litres of water could have been used to cool the machines that trained ChatGPT-3...
Additionally, as these companies aim to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, they may opt to base their datacentres in regions with cheaper electricity, such as the southern US, potentially exacerbating water consumption issues...

What is this idiocy? You realize that a chip fab uses something to the tune of ten million gallons of water per day, right? Ten million. Per day. I'm not even looking at other industrial processes, which are almost undoubtedly worse (and recycle their water less than fabs) - but if you're going to whine about the environmental impact of tech, maybe have a look at the manufacturing side of it.

Furthermore, while minerals such as lithium and cobalt are most commonly associated with batteries in the motor sector, they are also crucial for the batteries used in datacentres. The extraction process often involves significant water usage and can lead to pollution, undermining water security. The extraction of these minerals are also often linked to human rights violations and poor labour standards.

Man, we're really grasping at straws here. More complaining about water usage, pollution, water security, labor standards, human rights violations... wait, were we talking about the costs of data centers or capitalism in general? Because I'm pretty sure these issues are endemic, across every industry, every country, maybe even our entire economic system. Something like a data center, which uses expensive equipment, likely has a lower impact of every single one of these measures than... I dunno... clothes? food? energy production? transport? Honestly guys, I'm struggling to think of an industry that has lower impact, help me out (genuine farm to table restaurants, maybe).

There are things to complain about in computing. Crypto is (at least for the time being) a ponzi scheme built on wasting energy, social media has negative developmental/social effects, etc. But the environmental impact of stuff like data centers... its just not a useful discussion, and it feels like a distraction from the real issues on this front.

In fact I'd go further and say its actively damaging to publish attack pieces like these. The last few years I didn't drive to the DMV to turn in my paperwork, I did it over the internet. I don't drive to work because I'm fully remote since the pandemic, cutting my gas/car usage by easily 90%. I don't drive to blockbuster to pick out videos the way I remember growing up. The sheer amount of physical stuff we used to do to transmit information has been and is gradually all being transitioned to the internet - and this is a good thing. The future doesn't have to be all bad, folks.

Heliumfart ,

Thank you. The 700000 litres in particular pissed me off.. that's a 9 meter cube. Whoopdie doo

SuperSpruce ,

For comparison, a single hydraulically fractured oil well uses over 100 times as much water.

Spedwell ,

The reason the article compares to commercial flights is your everyday reader knows planes' emissions are large. It's a reference point so people can weight the ecological tradeoff.

"I can emit this much by either (1) operating the global airline network, or (2) running cloud/LLMs." It's a good way to visualize the cost of cloud systems without just citing tons-of-CO2/yr.

Downplaying that by insisting we look at the transportation industry as a whole doesn't strike you as... a little silly? We know transport is expensive; It is moving tons of mass over hundreds of miles. The fact computer systems even get close is an indication of the sheer scale of energy being poured into them.

barsoap ,

and recycle their water less than fabs

Which is actually a very good idea economics-wise but fabs didn't care much for the longest time because while crucial it's still a minor part of their operating infrastructure. They had bigger fish to fry.

The thing is if you clean a wafer with ultrapure water, the resulting waste water might have some nasty stuff in it... but tap water has more stuff in it, just not as nasty. They generally need to process the waste water to be environmentally safe, anyway, doesn't take much to feed it back into the cycle and turn it into ultrapure, again.

Side note in case you're wondering what it's like to drink that kind of water: It's basically a novel way to burn your tongue. The osmotic pressure due to lack of minerals will burst cell walls but you're not a microorganism so you'll most likely be fine and the load on your overall mineral stores is only marginally higher than when drinking ordinary water, we get the vast majority of our minerals from food.

But the environmental impact of stuff like data centers… its just not a useful discussion,

I'd say it is but more along the lines of feeding waste heat into district heating. Someone can shower with those CPU cycles.

locuester ,

Cmon, outside of ol’ Bitcoin, my freedom of money networks are a drop in the bucket.

C126 ,

Good assessment, thanks

lolcatnip ,

with the odds being good the same data could be served at 1/20th the cost today

Gotta nitpick you there. According the Moore's law (really more of a rule of thumb), the price of the silicon used to serve those videos should be 1/16 of what it is today. I'm not aware of any corresponding law that describes trends in energy consumption. It's getting better for sure, but I'd be shocked if there was a 20x improvement in 6 years.

Fades ,

Goddamn what a beautiful comment, brings a tear to my eye

Juice ,

Oh no let's build more gigantic server farms about it

trslim ,

Wow, AI really will kill us, just not in the way anyone imagined

gandalf_der_12te ,
@gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

AI Training is a flexible energy consumer, meaning it can be switched on and off at will, so that it can take advantage of excess solar power during the daylight, providing extra income to solar panel parks. The important thing to do is to install solar panels, and then AI training isn't an environmental problem anymore.

SandbagTiara2816 ,

We already have a more elegant solution than training AI when solar arrays produce more electricity than the grid needs - batteries. It strikes me as a better option to save the energy for later use than to burn it off to train AI.

gandalf_der_12te ,
@gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

I would say that both are interesting proposals to look at. Of course, doing the math and crafting the best approach is work and takes time, and I can't give many details in a lemmy comment.

SandbagTiara2816 ,

It is for sure a tricky question. Another comment pointed out that we may be coming at the topic from different directions. I’ll admit that the energy demands of AI make me nervous, when I consider how hard the transition to renewables already is without the added load, but I’m not familiar with work in that space to make AI training less energy intense. What options are being worked on?

(Other than SMR or betting on fusion)

explodicle ,

Or dams

SandbagTiara2816 ,

Heck yeah! Love me some pumped hydro

Buddahriffic ,

It looks like you and the commenter you replied to are talking about two different problems. You're talking about what to do about excess solar energy, they are talking about how to power AI training in an environmentally-friendly way.

SandbagTiara2816 ,

Ah, that makes sense! Yeah, I’m out of my depth when it comes to how to train an AI model. I tend to leap into defense mode when intermittency of renewable energy comes up, because it’s very often an anti-renewables talking point, when we actually do have a lot of solutions for it.

slackassassin ,

"Burn it off to train AI" is a silly thing to consider given how much computing occurs just to even argue about this.

StaySquared , (edited )

Of course it would.. lmao are you kidding me? Have you never seen a server farm? Hell NSA has huge warehouses of servers.

Last year, before I joined this organization, IT decided to get off Microsoft's cloud service because after some calculations they realize that on-prem hosting was significantly cheaper than cloud hosting. Now I believe more and more organizations small and large/enterprise are getting off cloud or doing a mixture / hybrid because the costs are not justifiable.

And for AI? Requiring GPUs? Huge energy consumers.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Pass a carbon tax. Oh wait that would be too easy.

Buttons ,
@Buttons@programming.dev avatar

It seems the people who are the most staunch defenders of capitalism and free markets are the most resistant to the capitalist and free market solution.

Clean air (or rather, air with normal levels of carbon) belongs to the public, and anyone who wants to take it away should pay the public.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Sigh. You can hold any opinion you want about the ideal society. This is a good idea for the society we have now. If we all die it's not going to matter if Adam Smith or Karl Marx was correct.

Eccitaze ,
@Eccitaze@yiffit.net avatar

I'm pretty sure he was agreeing with you...?

Emmie ,
@Emmie@lemm.ee avatar

I think that some are allergic to any slightest notion of capitalism being good

raspberriesareyummy ,

Which may be because recent history has proven beyond doubt that capitalism without regulation is catastrophical and capitalists will always push the boundaries & try to get rid of regulation, thereby it is always catastrophical, with temporary periods where it looks good on the surface.

SkyeStarfall ,

Carbon taxes doesn't make capitalism good, it's still like, the cause of the problem in the first place

BearGun ,

hey i think you attracted some of those people you mentioned :)

Emmie , (edited )
@Emmie@lemm.ee avatar

Sometimes I just want to see online world burn

Now do I want to engage em or not? Probably not I guess, it would be tiring especially since any nuance is lost on the web in favour of black and white thinking

I’ll play some guitar or eat burgers while they produce their stuff. Maybe draw something or blender hm

The key to healthy internet is to wisely choose your keyboard battles and not get bogged down by the army of simpletons

Grimy ,

On top of that, if you refuse to defend your vague statements implying it would be a waste of your time and beneath you, you end up being always right!

Emmie ,
@Emmie@lemm.ee avatar

I mean only something that can crumble needs defending. If something is made from undefeated steel it can be left and is as pristine as ever upon return.

barsoap ,

Adam Smith would go absolutely ballistic if he were to see our current system. Not at all his vision.

explodicle ,

GTFO with your time-tested solution to negative externalities.

spyd3r ,
@spyd3r@sh.itjust.works avatar

Why don't you just hand over all your income to the government just to be sure you won't engage in any unnecessary activity.

afraid_of_zombies ,

What are you on about? A carbon tax is a way to lower the tragedy of the commons in terms of air pollution. It is the free market compromise. Allowing individuals and companies time and giving them incentive to stop doing something that hurts us as a whole. The socialist answer would be to ban it outright. You are getting the best solution the capitalist market allows. Additionally it aligns pretty well with traditional capitalist economists have argued before: a resource owned as a whole will be mismanaged.

I honestly don't get why it isn't a more popular idea. I would much rather live in a world where people are being gently pushed into making the right decision with adequate time to adapt vs a world that is on fire.

And on the off chance that 99% of climate science is wrong we still benefit from having a less acidic ocean, less smog, less local air pollution, and spending less money on maintenance of so many machines.

nucleative ,

I think we'll improve this a lot. Now it's a race to be first, later it will be a race to be profitable and keep costs low.

Plus the sun outputs a lot more energy than earth can ever consume so we just need to get better at collecting it without creating waste on the side.

frezik ,

We're already going to have to deploy wind and solar at a breakneck pace to solve global warming. Why do we need a technology that would force us to install even more?

shadearg , (edited )
@shadearg@lemmy.world avatar

The forefront of technology overutilizes resources?

Always has been.

Edit: Supercomputers have existed for 60 years.

dustyData ,

AI is on another completely different level of energy consumption. Consider that Sam Altman, of OpenAI, is investing on Nuclear power plants to feed directly their next iterations of AI models. That's a whole ass nuclear reactor to feed one AI model. Because the amount of energy we currently create is several magnitudes not enough for what they want. We are struggling to feed these monsters, it is nothing like how supercomputers tax the grid.

shadearg ,
@shadearg@lemmy.world avatar

Supercomputers were feared to be untenable resource consumers then, too.

Utilizing nuclear to feed AI may be the responsible and sustainable option, but there's a lot of FUD surrounding all of these things.

One thing is certain: Humans (and now AI) will continue to advance technology, regardless of consequence.

dustyData ,

Would you kindly find a source for that? Supercomputers run discrete analyses or processes then halt. The big problem with these LLMs is that they run as on line services that have to be on all the time to chat with millions of users online. The fact they're never turned off is the marked difference. As far as I recall, supercomputers have always been about power efficiency and don't ever recall anyone suggesting to plug one to a nuclear reactor just to run it. Power consumption has never been the most important concern about even exaflops supercomputers.

Another factor is that there aren't that many supercomputers in the world, a handful of thousand of them. While it takes that same number of servers, which are less energy efficient and run 24/7 all year, to keep an LLM service up and available to the public with 5 nines. That alone overruns even the most power hungry supercomputers in the world.

shadearg , (edited )
@shadearg@lemmy.world avatar

Would you kindly find a source for that?

I can personally speak from the 80s, so that's not exactly a golden age of reliable information. There was concern about scale of infinite growth and power requirements in a perpetual 24/7 full-load timeshare by people that were almost certainly not qualified to talk about the subject.

I was never concerned enough to look into it, but I sure remember the FUD: "They are going to grow to the size of countries!" - "They are going to drink our oceans dry!" ... Like I said, unqualified people.

Another factor is that there aren't that many supercomputers in the world, a handful of thousand of them.

They never took off like the concerned feared. We don't even concern ourselves with their existence.

Edit: grammar

dustyData ,

For what is worth, this time around it isn't unqualified people. There are strong scientifically studied concerns, not that infinite growth of LLMs, but their current numbers are already too power hungry. And what actual plans are currently in the engineering pipes are too much as well, not wild speculation, but actually funded and on the way development.

shadearg ,
@shadearg@lemmy.world avatar

I am concerned about the energy abuse of LLMs, but it gets worse. AGI is right around the corner, and I fear that law of diminishing return may not apply due to advantages it will bring. We're in need of new, sustainable energy like nuclear now because it will not stop.

Lettuceeatlettuce ,
@Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml avatar

The difference is that supercomputers by and large actually help humanity. They do things like help predict severe weather, help us understand mathematical problems, understand physics, develop new drug treatments, etc.

They are also primarily owned and funded by universities, scientific institutions, and public funding.

The modern push for ubiquitous corpo cloud platforms, SaaS, and AI training has resulted in massive pollution and environmental damage. For what? Mostly to generate massive profits for a small number of mega-corps, high level shareholders and ultra wealthy individuals, devalue and layoff workers, collect insane amounts of data to aid in mass surveillance and targeted advertising, and enshitify as much of the modern web as possible.

All AI research should be open source, federated, and accountable to the public. It should also be handled mostly by educational institutions, not for-profit companies. There should be no part of it that is allowed to be closed source or proprietary. No government should honor any copyright claims or cyber law protecting companies' rights to not have their software hacked, decompiled, and code spread across the web for all to see and use as they see fit.

shadearg ,
@shadearg@lemmy.world avatar

While I absolutely agree with everything you've stated, I'm not taking a moral position here. I'm just positing that the same arguments of concern have been on the table since the establishment of massive computational power regardless of how, or by whom, it was to be utilized.

Lettuceeatlettuce ,
@Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml avatar

The concern is for value though. Like, if I'm going to use a massive amount of power and water to compute, I should be considering value to humanity as a whole.

AI is being sold as that, but so far, it's actually harming instead of helping. Supercomputing was helping pretty much right away.

I suppose you could argue that if general supercomputing was invented now, it would be used for just as superficial uses. Maybe the context of personal computing, the internet, and corpo interests shape that.

ikidd ,
@ikidd@lemmy.world avatar

What is this even? Batteries for UPS in a datacenter wouldn't be a patch on even a few days of production of EVs, water isn't being shipped from "drier parts of the world" to cool datacenters, and even if it were, it's not gone forever once it's used to cool server rooms.

Absolutely, AI and crypto are a blight on the energy usage of the world and that needs to be addressed, but things like above just detract from the real problem.

frezik ,

The water is because datacenters have been switching to evaporative cooling to save energy. It does save energy, but at the cost of water. It doesn't go away forever, but a lot of it does end up raining down on the ocean, and we can't use it again without desalination and using even more energy.

KevonLooney ,

a lot of it does end up raining down on the ocean, and we can't use it again without desalination

Where do you think rain comes from? Why do hurricanes form over the ocean?

frezik ,

Dude, please. If this were true, we wouldn't have water issues piling up with the rest of our climate catastrophe.

androogee ,

No no they've got a point. Everyone knows that the invisible hand of the free market and the invisible hand of the replenishing water table just reach out, shake hands, and agree to work it all out.

Jarix ,

Rainforests. Like the Amazon that is being deforested obscenely in some areas

everyone_said ,

That may all be true, but the amount of water used by these data centers is miniscule, and it seems odd to focus on it. The article cites Microsoft using 700,000 liters for ChatGPT. In comparison, a single fracking well in the same state might use 350,000,000 liters, and this water is much more contaminated. There are so many other, more substantive, issues with LLMs, why even bring water use up?

Edit: If evaporative cooling uses less energy it might even be reducing total industrial water use, considering just how much water is used in the energy industry.

technocrit ,

ITT hella denialism.

kilgore_trout ,
@kilgore_trout@feddit.it avatar

It is a little scary. Machine learning / LLMs consumes insane amounts of power, and it's under everyone's eyes.

I was shocked a few months ago to learn that the Internet, including infrastructure and end-user devices, already consumed 30% of world energy production in 2018. We are not only digging our grave, but doing it ever faster.

frezik , (edited )

The Sam Altman fans also say that AI would solve climate change in a jiffy. Problem is, we already have all the tech we need to solve it. We lack the political will to do it. AI might be able to improve our tech further, but if we lack the political will now, then AI's suggestions aren't going to fix it. Not unless we're willing to subsume our governmental structures to AI. Frankly, I do not trust Sam Altman or any other techbro to create an AI that I would want to be governed by.

What we end up with is that while AI might improve things, it almost certainly isn't worth the energy being dumped into it.

Edit: Yes, Sam Altman does actually believe this. That's clear from his public statements about climate change and AI. Please don't get into endless "he didn't say exactly those words" debates, because that's bullshit. He justifies massive AI energy usage by saying it will totally solve climate change. Totally.

AdrianTheFrog ,
@AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world avatar

I agree that these arguments are stupid, but is anyone actually saying we should do those things?

frezik ,
afraid_of_zombies ,

Seems he didn't say what you said he did. Why did you lie?

frezik ,

Why do you keep embarrassing yourself?

afraid_of_zombies ,

Posioning the well. You can admit your lies btw

afraid_of_zombies ,

No one is.

afraid_of_zombies ,

You know I have never once heard anyone saying what you are saying that they are. I personally think it would be better for us to address bad arguments that are being made instead of ones we wish existed solely so we can argue with them.

frezik ,
afraid_of_zombies ,

Claim:

"The Sam Altman fans also say that AI would solve climate change in a jiffy. "

What he said:

"If we spend 1% of the world's electricity training powerful AI, and that AI does figure out how to get (to carbon goals) that would be a massive win, (especially) if that 1% lets people live their lives better.”

Were you just assuming I would take you at your word?

frezik ,

Check my edit in the post above, made over an hour before you posted this.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Actually made after I posted that. Why do you keep lying? It's messed up. This is low stakes internet comments.

And no he didn't say what you swore he said.

frezik ,

Because I'm not lying, you're incapable of looking past the surface of Sam Altman's obviously self serving comments.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Yeah you were.

frezik ,

Unfortunately for you, we can actually see edit and post times on comments:

https://midwest.social/pictrs/image/67a4cd22-4a0f-4cdb-ba6c-732e57f4cf77.png

My comment, last edited May 30, 12:29:07 GMT-5.

https://midwest.social/pictrs/image/a1d21b38-ddec-4fb2-9c91-b5d80abaafff.png

Your comment, posted May 30, 1:55:04 GMT-5.

So it wasn't an hour before. It was closer to 1.5 hours. You got me.

This isn't just about internet points. You're defending a shithead on the basis of "he didn't say exactly those words", as if context does not exist.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Keep on lying. Did he say what you said he did? No? Then you lied.

SlopppyEngineer ,

Frankly, I do not trust Sam Altman or any other techbro to create an AI that I would want to be governed by.

"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."

~ Frank Herbert, Dune

frezik , (edited )

Thing is, I could maybe be convinced that a sufficiently advanced AI would run society in a more egalitarian and equitable way than any existing government. It's not going to come from techbros, though. They will 100% make an AI that favors techbros.

Edit: almost forgot this part. Frank Herbert built a world ruled by a highly stratified feudal empire. The end result of that no thinking machine rule isn't that good, either. He also based it on a lot of 1960s/70s ideas about drugs expanding the human mind that are just bullshit. Great novel, but its ideas shouldn't be taken at face value.

kilgore_trout ,
@kilgore_trout@feddit.it avatar

we already have all the tech we need to solve it

And we already know "how to get to carbon goals" that Altman mentioned we need AI to figure out.

WldFyre ,

Now look into animal farming!

Seriously, though, our population growth rates are unsustainable, and we really better start getting in with nuclear power soon.

kilgore_trout ,
@kilgore_trout@feddit.it avatar

I already look into it, I choose to be vegetarian.

Nuclear power plants are a patch to the bigger issue, the idea of infinite progress. We need to reduce consumption.

WldFyre ,

Yeah but as long as our population keeps growing than I'm not sure how else we get to a sustainable world. Obviously it has to be an intentional, consensual cultural shift, I'm not suggesting forcing people to not have kids. But I didn't know how the earth doesn't just collapse at some point as long as people keep having more and more kids and our population keeps growing.

ETA: oh and I'm vegan btw

Teodomo ,

Nothing like the good old magical-thinking-from-guys-who-love-logic.

Believing oneself to be the rational one in life continues to sadly be the origin of so many blind spots in people's thinking.

Rooskie91 ,

Love how we went from "AI needs to be controlled so it doesn't turn everything into paperclips" to "QUICK, WE NEED TO TURN THE PLANET INTO PAPERCLIPS TO GET THIS AI TO WORK!!"

QuadratureSurfer ,
@QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world avatar

This article may as well be trying to argue that we're wasting resources by using "cloud gaming" or even by gaming on your own, PC.

blargerer ,

Gaming actually provides a real benefit for people, and resources spent on it mostly linearly provide that benefit (yes some people are addicted or etc, but people need enriching activities and gaming can be such an activity in moderation).

AI doesn't provide much benefit yet, outside of very narrow uses, and its usefulness is mostly predicated on its continued growth of ability. The problem is pretrained transformers have stopped seeing linear growth with injection of resources, so either the people in charge admit its all a sham, or they push non linear amounts of resources at it hoping to fake growing ability long enough to achieve a new actual breakthrough.

QuadratureSurfer ,
@QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world avatar

I'm going to assume that when you say "AI" you're referring to LLMs like chatGPT. Otherwise I can easily point to tons of benefits that AI models provide to a wide variety of industries (and that are already in use today).

Even then, if we restrict your statement to LLMs, who are you to say that I can't use an LLM as a dungeon master for a quick round of DnD? That has about as much purpose as gaming does, therefore it's providing a real benefit for people in that aspect.

Beyond gaming, LLMs can also be used for brainstorming ideas, summarizing documents, and even for help with generating code in every programming language. There are very real benefits here and they are already being used in this way.

And as far as resources are concerned, there are newer models being released all the time that are better and more efficient than the last. Most recently we had Llama 3 released (just last month), so I'm not sure how you're jumping to conclusions that we've hit some sort of limit in terms of efficiency with resources required to run these models (and that's also ignoring the advances being made at a hardware level).

Because of Llama 3, we're essentially able to have something like our own personal GLaDOS right now:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1csnexs/local_glados_now_running_on_windows_11_rtx_2060/

https://github.com/dnhkng/GlaDOS

technocrit ,

Otherwise I can easily point to tons of benefits that AI models provide to a wide variety of industries

Go ahead and point. I'm going to assume when you say "AI" that you mean almost anything except actual intelligence.

QuadratureSurfer ,
@QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world avatar

I think you're confusing "AI" with "AGI".

"AI" doesn't mean what it used to and if you use it today it encompasses a very wide range of tech including machine learning models:

Speech to text (STT), text to speech (TTS), Generative AI for text (LLMs), images (Midjourney/Stable Diffusion), audio (Suno). Upscaling, Computer Vision (object detection, etc).

But since you're looking for AGI there's nothing specific to really point at since this doesn't exist.

Edit: typo

technocrit , (edited )

Speech to text (STT), text to speech (TTS), Generative AI for text (LLMs), images (Midjourney/Stable Diffusion), audio (Suno). Upscaling, Computer Vision (object detection, etc).

Yes, this is exactly what I meant. Anything except actual intelligence. Do bosses from video games count?

I think it's smart to shift the conversation away from AI to ML, but that's part of my point. There is a huge gulf between ML and AGI that AI purports to fill but it doesn't. AI is precisely that hype.

If "AI doesn't mean what it used to", what does it mean now? What are the scientific criteria for this classification? Or is it just a profitable buzzword that can be attached to almost anything?

But since you’re looking for AGI there’s nothing specific to really point at since this doesn’t exist.

Yes, it doesn't exist.

QuadratureSurfer , (edited )
@QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world avatar

Edit: Ok it really doesn't help when you edit your comment to provide clarification on something based on my reply as well as including additional remarks.


I mean, that's kind of the whole point of why I was trying to nail down what the other user meant when they said "AI doesn't provide much benefit yet".

The definition of "AI" today is way too broad for anyone to make statements like that now.

And to make sure I understand your question, are you asking me to provide you with the definition of "AI"? Or are you asking for the definition of "AGI"?

Do bosses from video games count?

Count under the broad definition of "AI"?
Yes, when we talk about bosses from video games we talk about "AI" for NPCs. And no, this should not be lumped in with any machine learning models unless the game devs created a model for controlling that NPCs behaviour.

In either case our current NPC AI logic should not be classified as AGI by any means (which should be implied since this does not exist as far as we know).

AIhasUse ,

You read too many headlines and not enough papers. There is a massive list of advancements that AI has brought about. Hell, there is even a massive list of advancements that you personally benefit from daily. You might not realize it, but you are constantly benefiting from super efficient methods of matrix multiplications that AI has discovered. You benefit from drugs that have been discovered by AI. Guess what what has made google the top search engine for 20 years? AI efficiency gains. The list goes on and on..

slackassassin ,

People in this thread think AI is just the funny screenshot they saw on social media and concluded that they are smart and AI is dumb.

AIhasUse ,

Absolutely. I am surprised, I would expect more from people who would end up at a site like this.

andrew_bidlaw ,
@andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works avatar

It isn't resource efficient, simple as that. Machine learning isn't something new and it indeed was used for decades in one form or another. But here is the thing: when you train a model to do one task good, you can approximate learning time and the quality of it's data analyzis, say, automating the process of setting price you charge for your hotel appartments to maximize sales and profits. When you don't even know what it can do, and you don't even use a bit of it's potential, when your learning material is whatever you was dare to scrap and resources aren't a question, well, you dance and jump over the fire in the bank's vault. LLM of ChatGPT variety doesn't have a purpose or a problem to solve, we come with them after the fact, and although it's thrilling to explore what else it can do, it's a giant waste*. Remember blockchain and how everyone was trying to put it somewhere? LLMs are the same. There are niche uses that would evolve or stay as they are completely out of picture, while hyped up examples would grow old and die off unless they find their place to be. And, currently, there's no application in which I can bet my life on LLM's output. Cheers on you if you found where to put it to work as I haven't and grown irritated over seeing this buzzword everywhere.

* What I find the most annoying with them, is that they are natural monopolies coming from the resources you need to train them to the Bard\Bing level. If they'd get inserted into every field in a decade, it means the LLM providers would have power over everything. Russian Kandinsky AI stopped to show Putin and war in the bad light, for example, OpenAI's chatbot may soon stop to draw Sam Altman getting pegged by a shy time-traveler Mikuru Asahina, and what if there would be other inobvious cases where the provider of a service just decides to exclude X from the output, like flags or mentions of Palestine or Israel? If you aren't big enough to train a model for your needs yourself, you come under their reign.

afraid_of_zombies ,

That is a good argument, they are natural monopolies due to the resources they need to be competitive.

Now do we apply this elsewhere in life? Is anyone calling for Boeing to be broken up or Microsoft to be broken up or Amazon to be broken up or Facebook?

andrew_bidlaw , (edited )
@andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works avatar

We are missing big time on breaking them into pieces, yes. No argument. There's something wrong if we didn't start that process a long time ago.

QuadratureSurfer ,
@QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world avatar

Ok, first off, I'm a big fan of learning new expressions where they come from and what they mean (how they came about, etc). Could you please explain this one?:

well, you dance and jump over the fire in the bank's vault.

And back to the original topic:

It isn't resource efficient, simple as that.

It's not that simple at all and it all depends on your use case for whatever model you're talking about:

For example I could spend hours working in Photoshop to create some image that I can use as my Avatar on a website.
Or I can take a few minutes generating a bunch of images through Stable Diffusion and then pick out one I like. Not only have I saved time in this task, but I have used less electricity.

In another example I could spend time/electricity to watch a Video over and over again trying to translate what someone said from one language to another, or I could use Whisper to quickly translate and transcribe what was said in a matter of seconds.

On the other hand, there are absolutely use cases where using some ML model is incredibly wasteful.
Take, for example, a rain sensor on your car.
Now, you could setup some AI model with a camera and computer vision to detect when to turn on your windshield wipers.
But why do that when you could use this little sensor that shoots out a small laser against the window and when it detects a difference in the energy that's normally reflected back it can activate the windshield wipers.
The dedicated sensor with a low power laser will use far less energy and be way more efficient for this use case.

Cheers on you if you found where to put it to work as I haven't and grown irritated over seeing this buzzword everywhere.

Makes sense, so many companies are jumping on this as a buzzword when they really need to stop and think if it's necessary to implement in the first place.
Personally, I have found them great as an assistant for programming code as well as brainstorming ideas or at least for helping to point me in a good direction when I am looking into something new. I treat them as if someone was trying to remember something off the top of their head. Anything coming from an LLM should be double checked and verified before committing to it.

And I absolutely agree with your final paragraph, that's why I typically use my own local models running on my own hardware for coding/image generation/translation/transcription/etc. There are a lot of open source models out there that anyone can retrain for more specific tasks. And we need to be careful because these larger corporations are trying to stifle that kind of competition with their lobbying efforts.

blargerer ,

The transformer technology did come built for a specific purpose, automated translation.

otp ,

AI doesn't provide much benefit yet

Lol

I don't understand how you can argue that gaming provides a real benefit, but AI doesn't.

If gaming's benefit is entertainment, why not acknowledge that AI can be used for the same purpose?

There are other benefits as well -- LLMs can be useful study tools, and can help with some aspects of coding (e.g., boilerplate/template code, troubleshooting, etc).

If you don't know what they can be used for, that doesn't mean they don't have a use.

technocrit ,

If gaming’s benefit is entertainment, why not acknowledge that AI can be used for the same purpose?

Ah yes the multi-billion dollar industry of people reading garbage summaries. Endless entertainment.

otp ,

Ah yes the multi-billion dollar industry of people reading garbage summaries. Endless entertainment.

See, I'm not even sure if you're criticizing LLMs or modern journalism...lmao

RobotZap10000 ,

Unfortunately, they seem to be one and the same these days.

sinedpick ,

LLMs help with coding? In any meaningful way? That's a great giveaway that you've never actually produced and released any real software.

explodicle ,

FWIW I do that all the time, it's helpful for me too.

QuadratureSurfer ,
@QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world avatar

I gave up on ChatGPT for help with coding.

But a local model that's been fine-tuned for coding? Perfection.

It's not that you use the LLM to do everything, but it's excellent for pseudo code. You can quickly get a useful response back about most of the same questions you would search for on stack overflow (but tailored to your own code). It's also useful for issues when you're delving into a newer programming language and trying to port over some code, or trying to look at different ways of achieving the same result.

It's just another tool in your belt, nothing that we should rely on to do everything.

balder1991 ,

Yeah it is a bit weak on the arguments, as it doesn’t seem to talk about trade offs?

_sideffect ,

We all know this, and we all know the "ai" they have right now is anything but that.

But these companies are making billions from this gold rush hype, so they could give two shits about the planet

dinckelman ,

So when exactly is all of this going to stop? First we had town-scale crypto farms, that were juicing enough energy to leave other people with no electricity. Then we switched to NFTs, and the inefficient ever-growing blockchain, and now we're back to square one with PISS, and it telling people to put glue on pizza, and suicide off the golden gate bridge

masterspace ,

Crypto and proof of work algorithms inherently waste energy.

AI using a lot of energy is like 4k video using a lot of energy, yeah, it does right now, but that's because we're not running it on dedicated hardware specifically designed for it.

If we decoded 4k videos using software at the rate we watch 4k videos, we'd already have melted both ice caps.

LainTrain ,

AI bad though!

LainTrain ,

Never. Cope and seethe luddite. Btw AI plagiarizes less than humans. Back to Reddit, now!

dinckelman ,

I hope i can become this delusional one day. Life would be so much easier

LainTrain ,

Bruh you're projecting harder than an IMAX cinema

explodicle ,

It's going to stop when the price of energy reflects its external cost. Externalities are very well understood by economists, so big oil has convinced us to go after consumers instead.

We need a Green New Deal, not a villain of the week.

QuadratureSurfer ,
@QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world avatar

You know what's ironic? We're all communicating on a decentralized network which is inefficient when compared to a centralized network.

I'm sure we could nitpick and argue over what's the most efficient solution for every little thing, but at the end of the day we need to see if the pros outweigh the cons.

LainTrain ,

I highly doubt the "people" downvoting the nerds here understand what a decentralised network is, I bet some of them think Lemmy is just an app owned by a megacorp somewhere. How it works must be like magic to the unwashed .world masses.

MxM111 ,

This is horrible article. The only number given related to LLM is 700,000 liters of water used, which is honestly minuscule in impact on environment. And then there are speculations of “what if water used in aria where there is no water”. It is on the level of “if cats had wings, why don’t they fly”.

Everything we do in modern would consumes energy. Air conditioners, public transport, watching TV, getting food, making elections… exactly the same article (without numbers and with lots of hand waving) could have written. “What if we start having elections in Sahara? Think about all the scorpions we disturb!”

tsonfeir ,
@tsonfeir@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah is sounds like some anti-AI person looked for a reason to be mad

9point6 ,

Yeah was gonna say this, seems like someone stopped a couple of steps away from discovering that basically the entire modern world is built on top of unsustainable consumption.

FonsNihilo ,

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

  • Loading...
  • tsonfeir ,
    @tsonfeir@lemmy.world avatar

    More likely someone who knows how to properly use ChatGPT took their previous job

    TheGrandNagus ,

    I have an overall good opinion of the guardian as a news source, but almost every time I see an opinion piece on their site, it's utter dogshit. It's as if they go out of their way to find the absolute worst articles.

    But they do get shared a lot, which I guess is what they were going for?

    MxM111 ,

    They are really left leaning, not balanced, and it shows in their opinions, but also in news selection. Since fediverse is also left or even significantly left leaning, it gets shared a lot here.

    GiveOver ,

    Straight up misleading. Mentioning AI in the headline and then sneakily switching to "the cloud" (i.e. most of the internet) when discussing figures. They say it uses a similar amount to commercial flights? Fine. Ground the flights, I'd rather have the internet a million times over.

    doylio ,

    It's anti-tech propaganda. The same is happening with crypto. Certain groups don't like it, so they try to convince the public that it is bad for the environment so it will be banned

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • technology@lemmy.world
  • random
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines