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

Jevons paradox

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 165 posts

Re: Jevons paradox

#141

Post by sdesol »

mminer237 wrote: post #33
casey2 wrote: post #22

The intuition behind this is that people who had a usecase for the tech but were locked out because they couldn't afford it, or didn't believe it was worth it usecase can be engineers or researchers. Some of these people may perform better than expected causing a gap in true market value which is filled when they scale up to their new size Related: Jenson's Paradox: The more you buy, The more you save

I guess my question about the current events is: Are people really locked out of LLMs due to price? It seems like everything already has AI in it and that virtually every end user hates it. I could see a shift to more local models or something, but not an increase. I feel like LLMs have largely been oversold as a solution in search of a problem. Or are people just applying this as everyone and their mothers are going…

> Are people really locked out of LLMs due to price?

I think so. When you start using a good model, you soon learn that it can make a difference. If you have domain knowledge, you can treat LLMs like a design partner. With DeepSeek, what would have cost 50 dollars to use Sonnet is now 5 dollars. Having to only spend 5 dollars a month can be a real game changer for many.

Re: Jevons paradox

#142

Post by aurareturn »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #111
blagie wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your math is wrong: > This felt false to me, LED bulbs are generally 10x more efficient, so the average number of lights would have had to increase 10 fold, and this is ignoring the savings from not having AC cool those other 50 watts a bulb that went to heat. The first 5W also went into heat. Perhaps with the exception of light escaping through a window, * every* watt that goes into a lightbulb comes out as heat for…

If a 5w bulb and a 60w bulb output the same amount of light, those 55w are being wasted elsewhere (heat). I said 50 because I was afraid someone would go 'ACTUALLY LED's only save 50-55w', I didn't expect someone to argue that the 5w led bulb is also outputting heat. You are of course right, 2.5w of that 5w is likely heat being cooled by the AC. >I would not be surprised if there were a 10x increase in use of lightin…

  Quite frankly I don't care either way, I just wanted a source. I'm happy you feel that way though.
This is the best write up I found for lighting source, efficiency, and consumption relationship.

  As a first step in looking at this, I’ve taken the data from the analysis and plotted it on a log scale.  This shows clearly how consumption has increased as population and incomes (measured by per capita GDP) have risen and prices have fallen.   The central role played by efficiency is indicated by the dashed line, which shows the number of kWh needed to produce a unit of light (1/efficiency).  Comparing this with the solid blue price line showing price indicates that the 100 fold fall in price per unit of light in the 20th century was due to increased efficiency, mainly as electricity replaced gas.  Yet demand rose strongly over the period, increasing more than 100 fold.  This challenges the view that increases in efficiency translate into reductions in demand, and thus emissions.
https://onclimatechangepolicydotorg.wordpress.com/low-carbon...

Re: Jevons paradox

#143

Post by fluoridation »

diziet_sma wrote: post #80
mkleczek wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see a difference. In both cases demand increased, no?

Yes, but for subtly different reasons. In the case of induced demand, the supply curve shifts to the right (eg number of highway lanes increases) so we move to the right on demand curve (or quantity increases, eg more people drive). On the Jevon's paradox case, efficiency increases (eg fuel efficiency increases), so the _demand_ curve shifts (eg more people people drive).

Isn't it the same from the point of view of the consumer's calculus? If suddenly my car can do the same trip for half the fuel and in half the time, whether it's because the road is better or because my car is better, it won't affect how I'm going to use my car from then on.

Re: Jevons paradox

#144

Post by fluoridation »

adam_arthur wrote: post #125
enragedcacti wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The concept of "Induced Demand" is easily explained by the default state of the downward sloping demand curve, and upward sloping supply curve. In basic economic theory, if you reduce the cost of a good, more people will consume it. It is easily explained by that because that is literally the definition of induced demand (see sentence one of wikipedia). The concept has a name because its important to discuss the ex…

"Induced Demand" is often, incorrectly, talked about as a shift in the demand curve in response to increase in supply. There is no shift. I am addressing this common misunderstanding, not debating the wording in the Wikipedia article. "Induced Demand" is a misnomer, as the demand was always there at the given price. It is not induced, just realized. If I offer you a gold bar for $0, did I induce your demand to accept…

>"Induced Demand" is a misnomer, as the demand was always there at the given price.

That's not necessarily true. Suppose you're the government and you produce food for free, and every year people eat everything you make, and everyone is well-fed. You decide you want to prepare for a famine, so this year you start more farms such that next year you make 20% more food. The first two months you're able to save, but when people see that there's more food available, they change their habits and start doing even more exercise than before, and so they eat more until they eat all the food every month again.

Re: Jevons paradox

#145

Post by Ekaros »

Been thinking about EVs. They are cheaper per kilometre driven. So would this not mean that the owners of them spend more overall than ICE owners spend. And would drive a lot more. As Jevons Paradox means the demand for driving will be higher thus overall money spend on driving will go up.

Re: Jevons paradox

#146

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

aurareturn wrote: post #137
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #104

>Energy-efficient lighting, such as LED bulbs, has become a popular solution to reduce energy consumption. However, it serves as a notable example of the Jevons Paradox. While LEDs significantly lower the cost of lighting per unit, this reduction often leads to increased usage. For instance, people may install more lights in their homes or businesses, use them for longer durations, or adopt decorative and outdoor lig…

This felt false to me, LED bulbs are generally 10x more efficient, so the average number of lights would have had to increase 10 fold, and this is ignoring the savings from not having AC cool those other 50 watts a bulb that went to heat. Jevons Paradox does not state that there is a 1:1 relationship between efficiency increase and consumption. A 2x increase in efficiency does not always result in a 2x increase in co…

Jevons Paradox describes the situation where a 10x efficiency increase results in a >10x deployment of lumens, such that the amount of energy consumed for lightning increases relative to when lighting was inefficient.

Re: Jevons paradox

#147

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

quickthrowman wrote: post #133
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #104

>Energy-efficient lighting, such as LED bulbs, has become a popular solution to reduce energy consumption. However, it serves as a notable example of the Jevons Paradox. While LEDs significantly lower the cost of lighting per unit, this reduction often leads to increased usage. For instance, people may install more lights in their homes or businesses, use them for longer durations, or adopt decorative and outdoor lig…

LEDs are around 3-4x more efficient than fluorescent lamps, (1) 28W 2x4 LED fixture puts out around the same amount of light as (1) 4-lamp 2x4 fixture with (4) 28W fluorescent lamps, depending on the lumen output package on the LED fixture.

It's common to use incandescent bulbs as a baseline.

Re: Jevons paradox

#148

Post by BenFranklin100 »

enragedcacti wrote: post #77
BenFranklin100 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an aside, the concept of Induced demand has been criticized. A more precise way to think about “induced demand” is that the demand for a product at a lower price point was preexisting. The transaction didn’t clear until the price actually became lower and this demand manifested itself. This seems like splitting a hair but it is a more consistent intellectual framework for understanding the dynamics of a particular…

Induced demand is just the name for realized latent demand, your more precise way to think about it is the concept*. It's only muddled because it is often invoked in complex markets where the costs are often not monetary, there are substantial externalities to consider, or the supply is centrally managed. Should a city spend $500,000 to install lighting in the park downtown? After all nobody uses it at night because…

Thanks, very interesting. The term ‘induced demand’ has been used a lot in the urban transit & housing discourse. Occasionally you will see the term hijacked by NIMBYs who argue against new housing by claiming construction only serves to create more demand for housing. Or people will argue against widening highways because it will only and always just create ‘induced demand’. A more precise way of thinking about the problem is that a market will pay up to Y amount of time to get from point A to point B. It may be impossible to meet the total demand in this market at time Y with low-efficiency car transit, but a mass transit train system could saturate and address the entire market demand at price point time Y. That is, thinking more precisely about the problem can help inform policy choices.

Re: Jevons paradox

#149

Post by aurareturn »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #146
aurareturn wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This felt false to me, LED bulbs are generally 10x more efficient, so the average number of lights would have had to increase 10 fold, and this is ignoring the savings from not having AC cool those other 50 watts a bulb that went to heat. Jevons Paradox does not state that there is a 1:1 relationship between efficiency increase and consumption. A 2x increase in efficiency does not always result in a 2x increase in co…

Jevons Paradox describes the situation where a 10x efficiency increase results in a >10x deployment of lumens, such that the amount of energy consumed for lightning increases relative to when lighting was inefficient.

Which has happened historically.

  Comparing this with the solid blue price line showing price indicates that the 100 fold fall in price per unit of light in the 20th century was due to increased efficiency, mainly as electricity replaced gas.  Yet demand rose strongly over the period, increasing more than 100 fold.  This challenges the view that increases in efficiency translate into reductions in demand, and thus emissions.
https://onclimatechangepolicydotorg.wordpress.com/low-carbon...

Re: Jevons paradox

#150

Post by radlad »

fragmede wrote: post #131
radlad wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind too that to run DeepSeek R1 you'd need 768 GB, so essentially 4 tinyboxes.

The full one, sure, but there are quantizations runnable on far smaller machines.

Quantized models don't perform as well. The question was about running one of the cloud models.
Post reply on HN