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

151–160 of 337 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#151

Post by TulliusCicero »

dijit wrote: post #108
idle_zealot wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Driving to work" is hardly a "vote with your wallet" style consumer choice. Our housing, building, and transportation policies have been geared towards encouraging car-dependence for nearly a century. In places with better public transit and bike lanes, people spontaneously choose to use those modes of transport. Just like with companies dumping as much plastic waste/CO2 as they can get away with, this is a policy p…

I would agree with you, but Americans intentionally reinforce car dependence whenever it's discussed. It's bad enough that even non-US people regurgitate those talking points despite them being significantly less true for them; because they see it so much online.

> I would agree with you, but Americans intentionally reinforce car dependence whenever it's discussed.

They do, because their experience is that transit and biking really do suck and are useless. Which is accurate, for where they've lived.

The problem is that you have to convince people that things could be better, when their lived experience is that it's always terrible.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#152

Post by Brystephor »

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…

How much of Americans driving to work is because they choose too though? Amazon's 5 day RTO policy is a good example. How many of the people now going to an office 5 days a week would've done so without the mandate? I see the traffic every day, and saw the same area before the mandate, so I can tell you with confidence that there's many more cars on the road as a result of this commute. this all funnels back to the corporate decision to mandate 5 days in office.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#153

Post by LeonB »

01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #109

Enforce a global carbon tax, price it in, and tax the land

International tax agreements are crucial if any progress is to be made on preventing climate disaster.

Which major parties support it? Who is even talking about it?

It’s such an obviously needed mechanism, but hard to get anyone enthused about it.

This group have some proposals on the topic —

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_the_Taxation...

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#154

Post by saagarjha »

smcin wrote: post #131
saagarjha wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

I mean I’m not an expert but I think the general sentiment among Americans about meat is “yeah I hear meat production is gross/polluting/inhumane but I like meat and don’t want to think about that”. Charitably I think we have a lot of things we can care about and most people want to ignore this, plus there’s a lot of cultural baggage tied to diet people don’t want to leave. I think actual solutions will mostly involve the idea that reduction is good instead of throwing up your hands because you’re unable to commit to being vegan, and adding options to people’s diet that they actually enjoy. I think we have a very hard time solving “I can’t completely solve this and also it requires changes I don’t like so doing nothing at all is fine”.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#155

Post by netcan »

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…

if taken in aggregate, will have a significant impact

This is a good sentiment. But, in context, it is a fallacy. A harmful one.

Consumer action on transport and whatnot, assuming a massive and persistent global awareness effort... has the potential of adding up to a rounding error.

Housing policy, transport policy, urban planning... these are what affects transport emissions. Not individual choices.

Look at our environmental history. Consumer choice has no wins.

It's propaganda. Role reversal. Something for certain organizations to do. It is not an actual effort to achieve environmental benefit.

We should be demanding governments clean up. Governments and NGOs should not be demanding that we clean up.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#156

Post by themk »

llmthrow102 wrote: post #67
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.

Greenhouse gas emissions are only a fraction of terrible things that humans are inflicting on the environment, and meat/dairy are both nutritious food that provides requirements for sustenance, and if not eaten need to be replaced by something else that will also cause greenhouse gas emissions (aka, a 10% reduction in meat consumption does not equal to a 1.45% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions) I think it's kind…

Meat and dairy are bad for GHG, but they are also terrible for most of the other bad things we do to the planet. Eutrophication, species extinction, habitat loss, water use.

And the people in power do what the people want, that's why they are in power. Imagine telling people they couldn't eat as much meat. Would be political suicide.

That's why individual buying habits are important. If many individuals change, we might change as a society. And at some point there might be a tipping point where the people in charge can make a change.

Also, blaming other people for all the problems is not a great way to solve a problem. Take some responsibility.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#157

Post by croes »

The use of ChatGPT doesn’t replace the others it comes on top of that.

MS is missing its CO2 targets because of AI not because of burgers.

The whole argument is, it’s not bad because other things are worse.

We are racing towards the abyss but don’t worry AI only accelerates a little more.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#158

Post by citrin_ru »

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…

I think many Americans driving to work would be happy to work from home if not RTO mandates (encouraged by the government at least on a local level).

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#159

Post by croes »

changoplatanero wrote: post #2

If you use chatgpt somehow saves you from making one trip to the doctor in your car it can offset the entire year worth of chatgpt usage in terms of co2 impact.

If ChatGPT somehow makes you eat more burgers it could make it makes water consumption worse.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#160

Post by josephcsible »

Brystephor wrote: post #152
saagarjha wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How much of Americans driving to work is because they choose too though? Amazon's 5 day RTO policy is a good example. How many of the people now going to an office 5 days a week would've done so without the mandate? I see the traffic every day, and saw the same area before the mandate, so I can tell you with confidence that there's many more cars on the road as a result of this commute. this all funnels back to the c…

Exactly. IMO, any politician who's serious about saving the environment or reducing the number of cars should be proposing bills to heavily tax employers for every unnecessary commute they require of their employees (maybe $100-$500 per employee per unnecessary day required in the office).
Post reply on HN