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

261–270 of 337 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#261

Post by shafyy »

wmf wrote: post #68
scottcha wrote: post #40

Yet we also see that hyperscale cloud emissions targets have been reversed due to AI investment, Datacenter growth is hitting grid capacity limits in many regions, and peaker plant and other non-renewable resources on the grid are being deployed more to handle this specific growth from AI. I think the author, by qualifying on "chatgpt" maybe can make the claims they are making but I don't believe the larger argument…

Voluntary conservation was only working by accident and guilt tripping never works. The grid needs to become clean so that we can have new industries.

Even if grid the was 100% renewable, this does not mean that there's no environmental cost to producing electricity. As a society, we need to decide what is important and try to minize energy consumption for things that are not important.

And shoving LLMs into every nook and cranny of every application, so just tech giants who run the data centers can make more money and some middle managers get automatic summaries of their unnecessary video calls and emails is, I would argue, not important.

But once again, the fundamental issue is late-stage capitalism.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#262

Post by andymasley »

marcelsalathe wrote: post #257

A very nice article. But the google search and LLM energy estimates are outdated. More recent work put both at 10x less. https://engineeringprompts.substack.com/p/does-chatgpt-use-1...

Yup I decided to go with the worst estimates given by environmentalist critics of ChatGPT to try to show that even there it doesn't seem like a problem.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#263

Post by cyberax »

saagarjha wrote: post #163
cyberax wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I unironically like public transport because someone else does the “driving” for me. I’m sure someone is going to explain how Waymo solves this but sitting on a train with my laptop and breakfast while I magically get teleported to my office is much nicer than even being in the back seat of a car.

> I magically get teleported to my office

You work on a train station platform? My condolences.

And indeed, self-driving will solve this. You'll be able to just step into a car, and get teleported to the door of your office. After stopping at your favorite coffee shop midway.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#264

Post by liontwist »

bdndndndbve wrote: post #255
liontwist wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily we don’t have to do such a calculation. All this energy use will be factored into cost which tells us which is using more resources.

Ah yes high tech, an industry where there's famously no weird distorting influence from VCs subsidizing unprofitable business models to grab market share.

It doesn’t matter that you are paying for, someone’s paying for it, and that economizing force always is putting pressure on.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#265

Post by mritterhoff »

shafyy wrote: post #261
wmf wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voluntary conservation was only working by accident and guilt tripping never works. The grid needs to become clean so that we can have new industries.

Even if grid the was 100% renewable, this does not mean that there's no environmental cost to producing electricity. As a society, we need to decide what is important and try to minize energy consumption for things that are not important. And shoving LLMs into every nook and cranny of every application, so just tech giants who run the data centers can make more money and some middle managers get automatic summaries o…

What's the upside of moralizing energy consumption, especially once it's 100% renewable. Why not just let the market decide? If I'm paying for it, why does anyone else get a say in how I use it?

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#266

Post by andymasley »

Retric wrote: post #260
andymasley wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I basically do think that at some threshold it's important to weigh your time against negative impacts. I personally avoid taking flights whenever I can because of the climate and think that's worth my time relative to the emissions saved, but I also never worry about optimizing the energy use of my digital clock because that would take too much time relative to the emissions I could save. ChatGPT exists somewhere be…

On a logarithmic scale, it’s closer to the flight. Flying 1000 miles commercially only represents about 10 gallons of fuel.

10 gallons of fuel's worth of energy could be used to ask ChatGTP 100,000 questions (assuming 3 Wh per question) or power a digital clock (1-2 W) for 35 years. If you assume you ask ChatGPT 8 questions per day, it's using exactly as much energy as a digital clock. Personal use of ChatGPT is much closer to the clock.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#267

Post by andymasley »

XorNot wrote: post #141
wmf wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voluntary conservation was only working by accident and guilt tripping never works. The grid needs to become clean so that we can have new industries.

Yep, this is the real answer. It's also the only answer. The big fiction was everyone getting hopped on the idea that "karma" was going to be real, and people's virtue would be correctly identified by overt environmentalism rather then action. Fossil fuel companies won , and they won in about 1980s when BP paid an advertising firm to come up with "personal carbon footprint" as a meaningful metric. Basically destroyed…

I made a point in the post to say that it's better to mostly ignore your personal carbon footprint and focus on systematic change, but that I was writing the post for people who still wanted to reduce their consumption anyway

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#268

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

mritterhoff wrote: post #265
shafyy wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if grid the was 100% renewable, this does not mean that there's no environmental cost to producing electricity. As a society, we need to decide what is important and try to minize energy consumption for things that are not important. And shoving LLMs into every nook and cranny of every application, so just tech giants who run the data centers can make more money and some middle managers get automatic summaries o…

What's the upside of moralizing energy consumption, especially once it's 100% renewable. Why not just let the market decide? If I'm paying for it, why does anyone else get a say in how I use it?

I kind of agree with this sentiment , though we haven't reached 100% renewable ...

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#269

Post by [deleted] »

andymasley wrote: post #266
Retric wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a logarithmic scale, it’s closer to the flight. Flying 1000 miles commercially only represents about 10 gallons of fuel.

10 gallons of fuel's worth of energy could be used to ask ChatGTP 100,000 questions (assuming 3 Wh per question) or power a digital clock (1-2 W) for 35 years. If you assume you ask ChatGPT 8 questions per day, it's using exactly as much energy as a digital clock. Personal use of ChatGPT is much closer to the clock.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN