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

I've never been so conflicted about a technology

marcjenkins.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 125 posts

Re: I've never been so conflicted about a technology

#61

Post by raincole »

staunton wrote: post #33
jebarker wrote: post #19

> “If you’re going to use generative tools powered by large language models, don’t pretend you don’t know how your sausage is made.” This isn't a very hopeful quote given how many people continue to eat sausages even though we all know how sausages are made.

> we all know how sausages are made. I'm doubtful. There's a few documentaries showing the process and I've had people tell me multiple times that they were genuinely shocked by it. I'm assuming those people "knew" and it's just that knowing "it's all the waste at the butcher getting stuffed into guts" is not quite the same as seeing it first hand.

And what happened after they told you they were shocked? Did they all become vegan once and for all?

Re: I've never been so conflicted about a technology

#62

Post by btilly »

perrygeo wrote: post #36
roywiggins wrote: post #9

> Models require massive amounts of electricity and water (to cool servers). Does it? https://prospect.org/environment/2024-09-27-water-not-the-pr... > training GPT-3 used as much water as just under twice what is required for the average American’s beef consumption. In other words, just two people swearing off beef would more than compensate. https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversa... > It would…

I don't understand the "whatboutism" angle. Running LLMs requires massive amounts of electricity and water. Period. That beef consumption and other activities also require massive amounts of resources is independent. Both can be true. And both need to be addressed. We no longer have the luxury to pick and choose which climate interventions we find most convenient; we need to succeed on all fronts. If the patient is d…

According to https://www.theverge.com/24066646/ai-electricity-energy-watt... a reasonable estimate is half a percent of global energy usage by 2027. On the one hand, this is a lot of energy. On the other, that's in the same general neighborhood as what we could save by maintaining proper tire pressure on our cars. (See https://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/the-truth-about-tire-press... for more about that.)

Re: I've never been so conflicted about a technology

#63

Post by candiddevmike »

computerex wrote: post #44

> AI and Crypto are net negatives in this regard. Not sure how anyone can with certainty say that AI will be a net negative in the long run for climate change. Logic I think says the opposite.

How can AI be a net positive for climate change? We know what needs to happen to fix it, how would AI telling us the same thing "hit differently"?

Re: I've never been so conflicted about a technology

#64

Post by Uehreka »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #22

> Firstly, there’s the environmental impact. Surely, like everything else in tech, this too shall pass. I expect power requirements to fall away since there is no doubt strong incentives to do so. > My naive optimism led me to believe that technology would help us fight climate change. Yeah, proceeding full steam ahead with planet destruction and praying tech will save us is kind of naive. You're not alone though. >…

> The web has been contaminated ever since SEO. Maybe AI will kill the web. So it goes.

This statement kinda blows my mind. You contemplate the destruction of the web, the single most world-changing invention of the last century, possibly the last millennium, a force that has democratized access to information, accelerated scientific progress and connected people around the world, the technology that one way or another played a huge role in the lives of every person on this site, and you shrug?

I see your Kurt Vonnegut and raise you Dylan Thomas: Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Re: I've never been so conflicted about a technology

#65

Post by candiddevmike »

lordnacho wrote: post #6

I think it's harsh to start the accounting so soon after the breakthrough. Yes, of course AI uses a lot of energy. But we have to give it a bit of time to see if there are benefits that come with this cost. I think there will be. Whether the tradeoff was worthwhile, I think we are not even close to being able to conclude. Something like social media, which has a good long while behind it, I could accept if you starte…

Same arguments folks had with cryptocurrencies.

Re: I've never been so conflicted about a technology

#66

Post by BeetleB »

roywiggins wrote: post #9

> Models require massive amounts of electricity and water (to cool servers). Does it? https://prospect.org/environment/2024-09-27-water-not-the-pr... > training GPT-3 used as much water as just under twice what is required for the average American’s beef consumption. In other words, just two people swearing off beef would more than compensate. https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversa... > It would…

Is training the bigger producer of CO2 or inference for the whole world using it? I suspect that in the long run, it is the latter.

Re: I've never been so conflicted about a technology

#67

Post by proxynoproxy »

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #51
lucianbr wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...why? why would technology that specifically requires a lot of energy help "fight climate change"? There's no good reason it would. Nevertheless, proponents of both AI and crypto have claimed multiple times it would. So I think it is quite fair to bring it up. https://ia.samaltman.com/

You do realise most cryptocurrencies aren’t PoW, so your point is living in the past, man!

Only the one big pow coin matters tho. Turns out, PoS coins are worthless!

I also dislike energy frugality arguments. They come from a Luddite place. A civilization is defined by its energy usage. Let’s be advanced civilization.

Re: I've never been so conflicted about a technology

#68

Post by dgb23 »

metalcrow wrote: post #40
perrygeo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the "whatboutism" angle. Running LLMs requires massive amounts of electricity and water. Period. That beef consumption and other activities also require massive amounts of resources is independent. Both can be true. And both need to be addressed. We no longer have the luxury to pick and choose which climate interventions we find most convenient; we need to succeed on all fronts. If the patient is d…

They would if the patient is alive and fighting them! In our case, the patient is society and it is quite definitely not all unified that we cannot pick and choose. If the doctors want to save their patient, they either need to tie them down and do what is needed, or they need to work within the confines of what the patient allows while trying to convince them to allow more.

The patient is kicking and screaming, because they are an addict.

Regardless, I’m not convinced by the parent comment. It basically suggests we solve this without analysis of costs and effects. Sounds insane to me.

Especially since the most promising solutions come from rapidly developing technologies and research. Turning off the lights just sends us backwards.

Re: I've never been so conflicted about a technology

#69

Post by clbrmbr »

perrygeo wrote: post #36
roywiggins wrote: post #9

> Models require massive amounts of electricity and water (to cool servers). Does it? https://prospect.org/environment/2024-09-27-water-not-the-pr... > training GPT-3 used as much water as just under twice what is required for the average American’s beef consumption. In other words, just two people swearing off beef would more than compensate. https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversa... > It would…

I don't understand the "whatboutism" angle. Running LLMs requires massive amounts of electricity and water. Period. That beef consumption and other activities also require massive amounts of resources is independent. Both can be true. And both need to be addressed. We no longer have the luxury to pick and choose which climate interventions we find most convenient; we need to succeed on all fronts. If the patient is d…

Naive question: why doesn’t the market regulate electricity consumption?

I’ve heard the answers pre-AI, but I wonder how this new general purpose use of electricity changes the calculus?

Re: I've never been so conflicted about a technology

#70

Post by greenie_beans »

Uehreka wrote: post #64
JKCalhoun wrote: post #22

> Firstly, there’s the environmental impact. Surely, like everything else in tech, this too shall pass. I expect power requirements to fall away since there is no doubt strong incentives to do so. > My naive optimism led me to believe that technology would help us fight climate change. Yeah, proceeding full steam ahead with planet destruction and praying tech will save us is kind of naive. You're not alone though. >…

> The web has been contaminated ever since SEO. Maybe AI will kill the web. So it goes. This statement kinda blows my mind. You contemplate the destruction of the web, the single most world-changing invention of the last century, possibly the last millennium, a force that has democratized access to information, accelerated scientific progress and connected people around the world, the technology that one way or anoth…

rage against a tsunami
Post reply on HN