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

231–240 of 337 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#231

Post by Forbo »

derangedHorse wrote: post #227
saagarjha wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bother…

It is not feasible to take a bike or public transportation to work in many parts of the world so a policy change like that would just incur an additional cost to those who have no alternative. A better idea is to encourage other types of transportation in private companies rather than penalize existing companies with taxes. If taxing the companies will raise prices on consumers, you might as well consider it an addit…

Redistribute the tax back to the people. That way you're eliminating the price externality but offsetting the cost to individuals. The fossil fuel industry can't continue to plug their ears and ignore the costs associated with putting more and more carbon in the atmosphere. We need to hold them to account.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#232

Post by jvanderbot »

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…

"Personal impact" is just laundering the responsibility of government and corporations so it looks like it's our fault.

It is true that everyone everywhere all at once could suddenly make the right decision forever and save the planet. But is a statistical anomaly so extreme it's not worth pursuing as a policy. No policy maker worth their salt would look at that and consider it valid long term.

We have a playbook. We refuse to use it. We ban products, and then the companies that refuse to change or cheat get shuttered, and we move on.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#233

Post by Forbo »

blkhawk wrote: post #46
dragonwriter wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The one near here just has heat exchanges. But even if all the others use evaporators then potential water usage is extremely misleading because its not like the water is consumed Water consumption in all contexts is mostly fresh water returned from immediately usable form to either evaporation or the ocean. It is not "extremely misleading", because when it returns to immediately usable form by, e.g., precipitation…

I did a bit of research and even water just "involved" in the process is counted as used in this context. For instance river water that is used for cooling and returned is counted. I think these sort of graphs are simply misleading and should not be used.

Is that actually a common configuration? I could find very little on data centers being cooler by river water, and the few I found sounded like they were doing something novel.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#234

Post by agentultra »

ben_w wrote: post #204
Fricken wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ride a bike, and doing so has saved me about $450k in transportation costs over 3 decades. The effort it takes to earn $450k is something to include amongst the unpleasantries and pathologies associated with driving. Now, of course, I've had my whole life to set up my whole life the way I want it, and with a little foresight it really wasn't that difficult to set it up in a way that facilitates getting around on a…

450k tax-free, too, because it's a cost saving and those aren't taxable*. Myself I've not driven at least since late 2017, thanks to excellent and cheap public transport; even before the Germany-wide €58/month ticket, the more expensive Berlin-AB ticket that I used to get was much much less than your $15k/year. Do most people plan like that? * usually, though IIRC buying a house in Switzerland gets you a tax equal to…

We also have a carbon tax where I’m from. Since I don’t own a car I don’t pay much into it. However I get a nice big rebate on my tax return. I basically get paid a small amount to not own a car.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#235

Post by fulafel »

simonw wrote: post #28
getwiththeprog wrote: post #8

This is a great article for discussion. However articles like this must link to references. It is one thing to assert, another to prove. I do agree that heating/cooling, car and transport use, and diet play massive roles in climate change that should not be subsumed by other debates. The flip side to the authors argument is that LLMs are not only used by home users doing 20 searches a day. Governments and Mega-Corpor…

The question this is addressing concerns personal use. Is it ethical to use ChatGPT on a personal basis? A surprising number of people will say that it isn't because of the energy and water usage of those prompts.

I feel it's great that people have gotten invested in energy use this way, even if it's a bit lopsisded. We should use it in a positive way to get public opinion and political overton window behind rapid decarbonization and closure of oil fields.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#236

Post by andymasley »

Hey all I wrote this post. To clear up a few points:

I meant this post to tell individuals that worrying about the emissions they personally cause using ChatGPT is silly, not that AI more broadly isn't using a lot of energy.

I can't really factor in how demand for ChatGPT is affecting the future of AI. If you don't want to use ChatGPT because you're worried about creating more demand, that's more legit, but worry about the emissions associated with individual searches right now on their own is a silly distraction.

One criticism is that I didn't talk about training enough. I included a section on training in the emissions and water sections, but if there's more you think I should address or change I'm all ears. Please either share them in the comments on the post or here.

I saw someone assumed I'm an e/acc. I'm very much not and am pretty worried about risks from advanced AI. Had hoped the link to an 80,000 Hours article might've been a clue there.

Someone else assumed I work for Microsoft. I actually exclusively use Claude but wanted to write this for a general audience and way fewer people know about Claude. I used ChatGPT for some research here that I could link people to just to show what it can do.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#237

Post by extra88 »

RHSeeger wrote: post #93
throwaway314155 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

- Ozone - Efficient Lighting (LEDs now, but others before) - Santa Claus There are certainly examples of a large portion of the population of the planet working together towards common goals. A lot of people putting in a little bit of effort _does_ happen, and it _does_ produce results.

Improvement of the ozone hole wasn't from millions of consumers making different choices, it was from government regulation and choices of the few leading corporations in particular industries.

Efficient lighting is a mix of regulation against worse lighting and individual consumer economic self-interest, lowering their electrical bill (and sometimes longer-lasting bulbs).

Neither of these are examples of large numbers of people choosing to sacrifice something for a common goal.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#239

Post by jhanschoo »

sadeshmukh wrote: post #82
jhanschoo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are mechanisms for such coordination. Diets have shifted around the world to more McD's, more western cuisine. Wild catch changes all the time as we overfish stocks to endangerment.

Always driven by money. McD's is cheaper and easier to mass produce. Wild catch changes when it is no longer economical to fish one kind of fish. There's never an "enlightenment" of people.

Internationally in markets undistorted by meat subsidies, plant-based food is cheaper and easier to mass produce...
Post reply on HN