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

Study: AI writing, illustration emits hundreds of times less carbon than humans

news.ku.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: Study: AI writing, illustration emits hundreds of times less carbon than humans

#31

Post by aebtebeten »

Wissenschafter wrote: post #25
mjhay wrote: post #16

A Modest Proposal for Preventing Poor Creatives from Being a Burthen to Tech Professionals or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick

Does society have an obligation to maintain a plethora of 'Poor Creatives'? What if a portion of society just decided that they must absolutely be paid for their hobby, or rich people are evil. Capitalism has really done a number on the human pshcye.

Luckily, my occupation of collecting gains, dividends, and interest is on the order of playing Snakes & Ladders, so it'll (at least according to Munroe) be difficult for an AI to outdo me: https://xkcd.com/1002/

Re: Study: AI writing, illustration emits hundreds of times less carbon than humans

#35

Post by CatWChainsaw »

xcv123 wrote: post #21
exe34 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article suggests, in the year 2000, that replacement migration might be a way to combat low fertility rate in the west. I don't think you can encourage low fertility rate. I don't think we did in the west. I also know there's nowhere to get our replacement from once the whole world is educated. Technological accelerationism might save us, or it might doom us. It's all rather exciting, isn't it?

> I don't think you can encourage low fertility rate. I don't think we did in the west. Pushing young women into the workplace so they can waste their lives grinding away at meaningless soul crushing fake corporate jobs instead of raising families. Degenerate Tinder/hookup culture. The "west" certainly encouraged it.

Are you as upset that young men are "wasting their lives grinding at meaningless soul crushing fake corporate jobs instead of raising families"?

Re: Study: AI writing, illustration emits hundreds of times less carbon than humans

#36

Post by barfbagginus »

hawski wrote: post #6

I will only mention that I don't see LLM output as overly satisfactory. Now. I would compare this to how humans use more carbon to move than a car for example. This could lead to a conclusion that we should stop moving and use more efficient propulsion to move. In car centered societies people move less and then need to exercise after hours more to have any sort of fitness at all. Of course there is a grunt body (and…

It's better than me at soft skills and communication drafting, editing and critique. It's a profound help for task planning, execution, and management.

And it's a profound help for requirements generation, architecture/design explorations, legacy code annotation, test planning, and other technical things that I struggle to do on my own

So honestly it's not just replacing writers. It's eliminating my need for executive officers, technical officers, and PMs

I'm spending 20 month on GPT4 and I'm 2-3x more productive. Good stuff!

Re: Study: AI writing, illustration emits hundreds of times less carbon than humans

#37

Post by [deleted] »

CatWChainsaw wrote: post #35
xcv123 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think you can encourage low fertility rate. I don't think we did in the west. Pushing young women into the workplace so they can waste their lives grinding away at meaningless soul crushing fake corporate jobs instead of raising families. Degenerate Tinder/hookup culture. The "west" certainly encouraged it.

Are you as upset that young men are "wasting their lives grinding at meaningless soul crushing fake corporate jobs instead of raising families"?

[deleted]

Re: Study: AI writing, illustration emits hundreds of times less carbon than humans

#38

Post by pennomi »

card_zero wrote: post #27

From the link to the study: > For the human writing process, we looked at humans’ total annual carbon footprints, and then took a subset of that annual footprint based on how much time they spent writing. So, they aren't asking "does a human painter use more electricity to do a painting than an AI?" ... they are asking "is it more energy efficient for an AI to do a painting, or for a human to exist for several hours?…

This is like measuring your active calories vs your total calories in a workout. Turns out that a meaningful percentage of calories are burned just by being alive, not from the work that was done.

Re: Study: AI writing, illustration emits hundreds of times less carbon than humans

#39

Post by exe34 »

xcv123 wrote: post #21
exe34 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article suggests, in the year 2000, that replacement migration might be a way to combat low fertility rate in the west. I don't think you can encourage low fertility rate. I don't think we did in the west. I also know there's nowhere to get our replacement from once the whole world is educated. Technological accelerationism might save us, or it might doom us. It's all rather exciting, isn't it?

> I don't think you can encourage low fertility rate. I don't think we did in the west. Pushing young women into the workplace so they can waste their lives grinding away at meaningless soul crushing fake corporate jobs instead of raising families. Degenerate Tinder/hookup culture. The "west" certainly encouraged it.

If you think puritanism is such a good way of life, you could always move to Saudi Arabia, Uganda or Texas.

Re: Study: AI writing, illustration emits hundreds of times less carbon than humans

#40

Post by xcv123 »

exe34 wrote: post #39
xcv123 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think you can encourage low fertility rate. I don't think we did in the west. Pushing young women into the workplace so they can waste their lives grinding away at meaningless soul crushing fake corporate jobs instead of raising families. Degenerate Tinder/hookup culture. The "west" certainly encouraged it.

If you think puritanism is such a good way of life, you could always move to Saudi Arabia, Uganda or Texas.

I'm not moving anywhere. I'm just an observer and that is simply what I have observed and experienced in my lifetime. Some women have told me they prefer to be a housewife, but modern society looks down on that. Nothing that I can or will do about that.

Natural selection will sort it out. No reproduction leads to extinction.

The strongest societies and cultures will survive. We'll see how it plays out over the next few generations.

I'm not moving to India, China, or Arabia, but they are certainly moving here. My city of ~2M people is now 50% foreign born and mass immigration is still at an all time high. The native populations here are reproducing at below replacement level. I have observed extreme demographic changes happening in real-time within a generation.

It is incredible to experience and none of us voted for it. There was no referendum. Nothing. Apparently this was UN policy and we had no choice.

Post reply on HN