Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is AI so environmentally damaging that we shouldn't use it?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–19 of 19 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is AI so environmentally damaging that we shouldn't use it?

#11

Post by satvikpendem »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #7
mikewarot wrote: post #5

RAM is the reason LLMs are so power inefficient. Shuttling weights and results from RAM to compute and back for everything is where most of the power goes. It doesn't have to be that way. For a sufficiently large load, it makes sense to use reconfigurable hardware and bake in the constants and s dataflow at runtime. Think of it like using an array of FPGAs large enough to hold the whole model unwound, yet that could…

Many things don't have to be the way they are. But as long as the powerful big tech can subsidize their costs on the commons of the environment in the form of environmental damage without regulation, they will only pay lip service to making things more efficient. Money is a much more powerful motivator to the unscrupulous than protecting the long-term health of the commons.

It costs money to run a datacenter, so even if you consider money to be their motivator, it benefits them to make them more efficient.

Re: Ask HN: Is AI so environmentally damaging that we shouldn't use it?

#12

Post by vouaobrasil »

satvikpendem wrote: post #11
vouaobrasil wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many things don't have to be the way they are. But as long as the powerful big tech can subsidize their costs on the commons of the environment in the form of environmental damage without regulation, they will only pay lip service to making things more efficient. Money is a much more powerful motivator to the unscrupulous than protecting the long-term health of the commons.

It costs money to run a datacenter, so even if you consider money to be their motivator, it benefits them to make them more efficient.

Not if spending a little extra money and keeping with the inefficiency helps make money in other ways, such as getting the product out faster or allowing their workers to focus on the tech stack. Saving a little electricity cost might cost them in their development, so they're likely to use the cheap electricity and offset the cost to the environment.

Re: Ask HN: Is AI so environmentally damaging that we shouldn't use it?

#13

Post by vouaobrasil »

satvikpendem wrote: post #10
vouaobrasil wrote: post #4

Of course you are wrong. "IEA's models project that data centres will use 945 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2030, roughly equivalent to the current annual electricity consumption of Japan." [1] And don't forget the recent announcement by Fermi America to build a 6 gigawatt nuclear datacenter in Texas. And what are we getting in return: (1) AI is primarily used, by and far, to accelerate consumerism. (2) AI has very few app…

> nuclear datacenter Nuclear is good though, it's the single densest source of energy in the world (and, well, outside of it too). I don't get your argument though, where has it "accelerated consumerism?" And you can't be serious about its medical applications, I doubt more people would die from its incremental climate change effects (as compared to, say, car accidents, much less car pollution in cities) as compared…

> Nuclear is good though, it's the single densest source of energy in the world (and, well, outside of it too).

It would be good if the energy were used in critical applications. Wasted energy is stil wasted.

> I don't get your argument though, where has it "accelerated consumerism?"

Are you serious? It is making people richer, allowing people to make products faster, including software. Of course that makes consumption faster.

> And you can't be serious about its medical applications, I doubt more people would die from its incremental climate change effects (as compared to, say, car accidents, much less car pollution in cities) as compared to being saved from death.

No, I am serious. And it will get much worse in the future. Check out [1], [2], etc.. And lets not forget the increased storms, flooding, etc. We are all responsible for that. But those that use electricity like big tech should be held especially responsible because they encourage the bad behaviour and use resources directly.

> Even outside of the scientific fields, AI sure is solving a lot of my problems, saying one is an "enemy of humanity" is the sort of hyperbole I'd only see on HN.

Solving your problems doesn't really mean solving the world's problems, just like making the top 10% richer doesn't make the world a better place. I absolutely consider them the enemy of humanity.

1. https://ourworldindata.org/part-two-how-many-people-die-from...

2. https://www.weforum.org/press/2024/01/wef24-climate-crisis-h...

Re: Ask HN: Is AI so environmentally damaging that we shouldn't use it?

#14

Post by alganet »

AI is psychologically dangerous. It's the greater risk. It can influence people do to things.

The environment talk is perhaps relevant, but if eventually AI becomes ecologically friendly, then people who are against it would be left with no argument.

I'm skipping over to the core of the problem right away. It's a risk to human minds, always. The eco talk is probably relevant, but most likely it's more resounding as a bait to make you look like a tree-hugger that doesn't know what you're talking about.

Re: Ask HN: Is AI so environmentally damaging that we shouldn't use it?

#15

Post by satvikpendem »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #12
satvikpendem wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It costs money to run a datacenter, so even if you consider money to be their motivator, it benefits them to make them more efficient.

Not if spending a little extra money and keeping with the inefficiency helps make money in other ways, such as getting the product out faster or allowing their workers to focus on the tech stack. Saving a little electricity cost might cost them in their development, so they're likely to use the cheap electricity and offset the cost to the environment.

The people who work on the product are not also working on the data centers

Re: Ask HN: Is AI so environmentally damaging that we shouldn't use it?

#17

Post by anenefan »

A.I. at the moment is in it's relative infancy ... energy efficiency will surely follow in a decade or so after a few dinosaurs die out or perhaps meet a more humorous demise when they are unkindly pegged out on a beach as a sacrifice to the angry weather gods.

Less cooling towers are needed if more of the heat is reused - some cold climate cities would surely benefit from a constant heat source, but some heat could could be used for power generation [1] that removes it from the balance sheet entirely as it's transmitted into space.

A.I. has it's uses, and is a very powerful tool not that I directly use LLMs, but I dare say as for public consumption in the next few years, the govt's around the world will double down on some of it's more tantalising uses like creating graphic or near real movies (in the name of child safety or what not,) or as a writing aide (protecting human creativity - copyrights) and instead much of what will be still legal will be be along the lines of A.I. search slop or existing software that's been slightly tricked up but heavily bloated ... Now with tracking ...

Sadly most of the A.I. assist in searches I've seen, is merely amplifying advertising spiel ... and not necessarily correct.

[1] https://www.ucdavis.edu/curiosity/news/anti-solar-cells-phot... (2020)

Re: Ask HN: Is AI so environmentally damaging that we shouldn't use it?

#18

Post by codingdave »

sabaimran wrote: post #3

I don't personally think there's that much value to this argument. Compare, for instance the consumption of 1 hour of tv vs. 1 hour of GPT usage: A single AI chat message can consume 0.34 watt-hours of energy (1). So, let's say a hundred messages in an hour (quite an aggressive session) would be 34 watt-hours of energy. An LCD TV running for an hour consumes about 100 watt-hours of energy, depending on size, LED, vs.…

You are ignoring the energy cost to train models. AI is not just the surface layer of end user messages.

AI is also used far more often than TVs - if every app and device starts using it, that is constant AI messaging going on. So TVs aren't even the correct comparison, especially if AI starts to be used more to create content - there is then an AI energy cost to just watching that content. Even putting that aside, what screen are you looking at when making these queries to AI? Maybe a phone... but if not, you are burning the energy from both the large screen and the AI.

Even putting aside the poor comparison that TVs are, with today's energy production, the environmental damage from AI is unquestionable. Rather than asking whether or not that is OK, there are really 2 questions to answer:

1) What are the benefits of AI, specifically? Yeah, vague things like "research faster" is a benefit, but you need to quantify it if you are going to make comparisons. And most AI usage is frivolous. Some AI usage is downright damaging, especially in creative industries. All of that needs to be balanced.

2) Can we change energy production to get off of fossil fuels? If we can do that, the damage of burning more energy decreases greatly.

My takeaways from this entire line of questioning is that we need to balance AI usage with renewable energy adoption, while keeping a strong eye on what we actually do with AI.

Re: Ask HN: Is AI so environmentally damaging that we shouldn't use it?

#19

Post by rrosen326 »

sabaimran wrote: post #3

I don't personally think there's that much value to this argument. Compare, for instance the consumption of 1 hour of tv vs. 1 hour of GPT usage: A single AI chat message can consume 0.34 watt-hours of energy (1). So, let's say a hundred messages in an hour (quite an aggressive session) would be 34 watt-hours of energy. An LCD TV running for an hour consumes about 100 watt-hours of energy, depending on size, LED, vs.…

What a great way to put it in perspective, and shocking how low per query.

I expanded your comparison list (with Chat GPT). Pretty interesting.

Activity | Watts Used (1 hr) ---------------------------------------|------------------- Laptop | 50 Wh Desktop + large monitor | 200 Wh Large screen TV | 200–300 Wh Video game + large TV | 300–500 Wh Washing machine run (avg) | 500–1,200 Wh Dishwasher run (avg) | 1,200 Wh Dryer run (electric) | 2,000–5,000 Wh Tesla city driving (Model 3 est.) | 14,000 Wh Tesla highway driving (Model 3 est.) | 18,000 Wh

Post reply on HN