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

Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

andymasley.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 337 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#131

Post by smcin »

saagarjha wrote: post #112
bitwize wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do this through the government. Implement meat rations. Everybody is only allowed so much meat per week. So you have to make it count.

Vegetarian here. People who eat meat tend to reduce their consumption if you 1. charge them appropriately for it and 2. give them good alternatives. Telling them to not do something usually makes them angry unfortunately.

How effective IYO was Morgan Spurlock (RIP) the activist filmmaker ("Supersize Me", [0]) at trying to educate the general (meat-eating) US public on US meat production, the restaurant industry, nutrition, marketing?

(PS:it's not a dichotomy between strict vegetarianism vs meat 4+ days/wk. Can encourage people to eat healthier and more sustainable.)

[0]: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1041597/

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#132

Post by maeil »

saagarjha wrote: post #127
maeil wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Telling them to not do something usually makes them angry unfortunately Then it's up to you to get even angrier.

Angry people are spiteful. I generally find it a lot more productive to get them to understand why their choices have consequences, how the can (progressively!) fix the problems, and watch things improve from there.

Environmentalists and those championing similar causes politically have taken this approach for decades. The result has been a perpetual shift to the right-wing who has no qualms about playing dirty, using fear, anger and other tribal emotions to gain support. Everywhere in the West, authoritarians are seizing power.

Good luck with continuing the virtuous approach while the world goes up in flames. It hasn't worked and has gotten us to where we are right now.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#133

Post by seanmcdirmid »

sitkack wrote: post #102
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Build new data centers near sources of power, and grid capacity isn’t going to be a problem. Heck, American industry used to follow that (building garment factories on fast moving rivers before electricity was much of a thing, Boeing grew up in the northwest due to cheap aluminum helped out by hydro). Why is AI somehow different from an airplane?

You are massively conflating what is possible with what is done.

I know data centers are built next to wind farms for these reasons already. We have an abundance of those projects out here in the PNW.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#134

Post by saagarjha »

idle_zealot wrote: post #116
saagarjha wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, my point is that everyone first goes “it’s not me”, then they understand it is them and go “but it’s not my policies” and then they vote in the policies which are the problem. It’s totally fine to go “we need collective action to fix this”. But you have to actually join the collective action. You think billionaires are getting rich by committing environmental arbitrage? Then don’t oppose attempts to make the cos…

Sure, recognizing that the problem is political is step one. Step two is... political activism, I guess? Lack of local political engagement and organizing is part of what allows problems like these to form.

Not just lack but outright apathy and villainizing of these attempts. If you try to tax gas some oil CEO will run a campaign explaining to the working class that their commute will now cost 10% more, which obviously makes people upset. Part of it is that we, unfortunately, can’t actually subsidize car commuters anymore. But part of it is that CEO is going to incur a cost of 50%, as he should, which is why he’s bothering to spend money riling people up.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#135

Post by eastbound »

throwaway314155 wrote: post #57
irishloop wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meat and dairy specifically accounts for around 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). If people collectively just ate a bit less meat and dairy, it would go a long way. Don't even have to be perfect. Just show a little bit of restraint.

Right just a little bit of restraint. On an unprecedented scale of coordination by hundreds of millions to billions of people - a scale of cooperation that has probably never occurred in human history (and there's no reason to believe it will any time soon). But sure, if people "just" did a "little", it would go a long way. Just a _little_ restraint from the entire population all at once in perpetuity. No big deal.

[flagged]

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#136

Post by saagarjha »

maeil wrote: post #132
saagarjha wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Angry people are spiteful. I generally find it a lot more productive to get them to understand why their choices have consequences, how the can (progressively!) fix the problems, and watch things improve from there.

Environmentalists and those championing similar causes politically have taken this approach for decades. The result has been a perpetual shift to the right-wing who has no qualms about playing dirty, using fear, anger and other tribal emotions to gain support. Everywhere in the West, authoritarians are seizing power. Good luck with continuing the virtuous approach while the world goes up in flames. It hasn't worked a…

I think people should be angry about that, yes. I’m not particularly interested in tying eating meat to racism or whatever it takes to make people fearful enough to support you.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#137

Post by smcin »

VSerge wrote: post #104
jchw wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this might be the first idea I've ever heard that I truly feel will backfire far worse than alcohol prohibition. I almost want to see it happen.

All families can't afford meat daily, let alone any type of meat they want. So, some families might favor chicken and certain processed meats here and there, but most cuts of beef and lamb for example might be out of the question, and so will daily meat consumption. The same applies for dairy, they might afford big blocks of tasteless cheese, but won't touch often cheese with taste, French or otherwise. There is no e…

The USDA budget totals ~$200bn, of which 70% goes to SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

Table FNS-1, p58 https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-usda...

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#138

Post by numpad0 »

VSerge wrote: post #104
jchw wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this might be the first idea I've ever heard that I truly feel will backfire far worse than alcohol prohibition. I almost want to see it happen.

All families can't afford meat daily, let alone any type of meat they want. So, some families might favor chicken and certain processed meats here and there, but most cuts of beef and lamb for example might be out of the question, and so will daily meat consumption. The same applies for dairy, they might afford big blocks of tasteless cheese, but won't touch often cheese with taste, French or otherwise. There is no e…

What's missing from this type of discussions is performance quantification and scientific attitude. It assumes solid food is indulgence and ultraprocessed vegan shakes paired with appropriate willpower is all it takes to do anything.

Things just don't work that way. Been there, done that. Willpower does nothing. Extra calories around your berry is extra calories around your berry. It's much more worthwhile to think about reducing GHG emission from farming than deceiving yourself into self-harming and projecting your own doing onto greater society.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#139

Post by cyberax »

saagarjha wrote: post #35
Liquix wrote: post #17

~90% of the plastic debris in the ocean comes from ten rivers [0]. eight are in china/SEA. millions and billions of single-use items are sitting in warehouses and on store shelves wrapped in plastic. even before the plastic is discarded, the factories these items are produced in dump metric tons of waste into the oceans/soil with little repercussion. point is, none of our "personal lifestyle decisions" - not eating m…

That's definitely not true. Let's take Americans, for example, driving their cars to work. Americans are about 15% of the world's emissions, of which 25% or so is transportation, of which well over half is cars. So you not driving to work is making direct impact on 2-3% of the world's overall emissions. Likewise, your decisions on all the other things, if taken in aggregate, will have a significant impact on overall…

> Let's take Americans, for example, driving their cars to work.

This is easily solved by switching to EVs. A small-size EV (perfect for personal transportation) is only slightly less CO2-efficient than rail ( https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint ).

I wish the world would ditch public transit entirely. It's nothing but a misery generator. It's far better to switch to remote work and distributed cities.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#140

Post by maeil »

saagarjha wrote: post #136
maeil wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Environmentalists and those championing similar causes politically have taken this approach for decades. The result has been a perpetual shift to the right-wing who has no qualms about playing dirty, using fear, anger and other tribal emotions to gain support. Everywhere in the West, authoritarians are seizing power. Good luck with continuing the virtuous approach while the world goes up in flames. It hasn't worked a…

I think people should be angry about that , yes. I’m not particularly interested in tying eating meat to racism or whatever it takes to make people fearful enough to support you.

And this is why everything will keep going up in flames - you're not interested in doing what it has been shown to take to get people to support your cause.

Unfortunately it doesn't matter what we think people should be angry about. FWIW I obviously completely agree with you! People should be angry about those things! Turns out they aren't. What matters is the reality we live in.

Post reply on HN