- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/20289663
A report from Morgan Stanley suggests the datacenter industry is on track to emit 2.5 billion tons by 2030, which is three times higher than the predictions if generative AI had not come into play.
The extra demand from GenAI will reportedly lead to a rise in emissions from 200 million tons this year to 600 million tons by 2030, thanks largely to the construction of more data centers to keep up with the demand for cloud services.
You must log in or # to comment.
Everyone thought AI was going to kill us via some Terminator-like Skynet.
Nope.
It’s just going to let us kill ourselves via greed and accelerate destroying the environment.
But it’s ok because it’s also going to solve climate change.
And even if it doesn’t, it’ll still make hundreds of trillions of dollars doing it, so it was worth it in the end.
Don’t worry, it’s all very green!
The cash and stock tickers that is.
Every IT company now: we should increase our server costs by 100x to offer unwanted gimmicks that users don’t want and aren’t willing to pay
And don’t trust
Between AI and shitcoin mining, these two “technology branches” already consume more power than all the green power added to the grid combined.
It’s why humans will always remain de facto slaves to a few masters. Anything that could potentially be advantageous to all life on Earth? Only if the ones at the top get to profit first. No profit? Enjoy scorching to death on hell-planet for the next forty years!
I dont think much will remain after this extinction event. Do you know how long it takes niches to refill in an ecosystem? We’re going to get to a point where industry collapses and we are reset if we survive at all.
We wouldn’t even be able to restart. All the easily available resources have been delved. Three thousand years ago people could scoop pure gold from rivers by the kilos. Today, all decent deposits lie kilometers below the surface.
But it’ll be for the best. We had our shot and blew it.
Between AI and shitcoin mining, these two “technology branches” already consume more power than all the green power added to the grid combined.
And your sources? I only did a cursory search, and according to the IEA data centers are responsible for somewhere in the range of 2-6% of electricity demand. Renewables are currently around 30% globally.
deleted by creator
Or compare to the CO2 put out by global concrete construction. It’s more than some might believe.
Removed by mod
Yes but concrete is required. It is literally the foundation of modern civilization. It is the second most used substance on the planet after water. Without it we would have to do away with things like roads, power plants (green and carbon emitting), housing, water treatment and waste treatment plants, erosion control and seawalls, and most production facilities for all of our day to day goods and essentials.
The industry is making steps to reduce its up front carbon cost and inrease captured carbon in the concrete, but it is slow moving as big changes can cause major problems with infrastructure. Noone wants their hospital falling down because they used a new mix design that hasn’t been thoroughly tested and tried.
We dont work without concrete, but i’m pretty sure we do work without bitcoin.
If your just looking at fun carbon emitting facts though, then aluminum smelting is another huge number like 4% globally. Concrete is like 7% globally, and HVAC is like 12%.
Between AI and shitcoin mining
The difference is that the better shitcoins have been upgraded to be 99% more energy efficient.
But there’s no foreseeable limit or escape from the waste of “AI”.
Proof of Stake (PoS) is just dollar bonds without regulations. There’s no "difficulty adjustment" to minimize profits, so inequality will just get worse and worse.
“The only way to interpret statistics is with a healthy dose of skepticism and a thorough understanding of their context.”
While people in this thread jump at the opportunity for this slice of statistics to affirm their confirmation biases, intelligent people will ask what the total carbon dioxide output looks like by comparison.
Can’t be logical here. This is a topic that’s like discussing immigration with Republicans.
You’re quick to imply that this study is bullshit, yet offer no counter argument except “believing statistics is for losers lul”
So where are your sources to refute the article?
Ita also trivial to come to the same conclusion at a smaller scale.
You can run a LLM at home and see the amount of GPU & power resources it takes to compute the larger models. If I ran that full time, your household bill will most likely be 3x alone.
Never said the study was bullshit. I just said to look at the bigger picture.
I would show you how Google works and provide an article, but your reading comprehension leads me to believe you’d come up with another straw man fallacy to support your confirmation bias.
Oh fuck off already, nobody cares.
Do we have an iamverysmart community? We could use one.
Lol you cared enough to respond. Sorry you’re too stupid to hold a conversation.
I remember when scientists were more focused on making AI models smaller and more efficient, and research on generative models was focused on making GANs as robust as possible with very little compute and data.
Now that big companies and rich investors saw the potential for profit in AI the paradigm has shifted to “throw more compute at the wall until something sticks”, so it’s not surprising it’s affecting carbon emissions.
Besides that it’s also annoying that most of the time they keep their AIs behind closed doors, and even in the few cases where the weights are released publicly these models are so big that they aren’t usable for the vast majority of people, as sometimes even Kaggle can’t handle them.
It’s a nice gimmick and sometimes fun but probably not worth it given the state of the planet already.
Oh yea, this is happening too.
Which search engines give results without an AI generated response?
Startpage and DuckDuckGo, but you might want to disable summaries in the latter’s settings.
Look, i’m not saying that this isn’t a problem. My only question is, is this one of those “global warming is because people don’t recycle their soda bottles” things? In other words, How concerned should I be about this vs, taking attention away from the energy, beef, and transportation industry?
Very concerned. It’s currently a race who can speed run us to extinction first.
deleted by creator
Don’t you dare say that eating meat is bad bro, someone will get very upset and point their finger at AI
Removed by mod
It’s a percent against the world’s emissions. Be concerned less with this. AI is the current hate train whipping boy, and takes the pressure of public focus off the biggest polluters.
I don’t think this is something to focus on. Tech being 40% of all emissions in the US is suspicious, given that in 2021, all industry was 30.1%, and all transportation was 28.5%. And the total emissions in the US was 6.3 billion tons. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=108623
I don’t have more recent data (if it’s in the article, I didn’t see it at a skim) but I feel like oil, gas, and agriculture are the bigger long-term targets.
Lesson: only ask AI if you’re still stuck after searching and have no colleague around.
This is the “carbon footprint” fallacy created by big oil. We should vote left and unionize until either the external cost of pollution is internalized with pigouvian taxes, or electricity is rationed by a community-owned organization.
Nobody will notice us shooting ourselves in the foot and expecting corporations to do it too. They don’t care if we lead by example unilaterally.
Does that take into account that AI models will become more efficient with time?
We never actually used large numbers of monkeys paired with typewritters to produce new literature.
Why? Because it would have wasted all the bananas to produce a bunch of shit.
That is all this level of AI is really equivilant to.
Throwing pudding at a wall, deciding if that toss is closer to the goal than before, changing something, then repeating.
Maybe dont waste the resources until the process is more efficient.
If I run some AI model on my GPU and power my computer via solar power and some batteries, am I actually contributing significantly to GHG emissions?
Like what is the embodied energy of an AI model?
As usual, pundits and scientists confuse what is and what could be with the truth. For example plastic recycling isn’t possible because “right now economics don’t make it profitable”. Meaning capitalism is killing us, not plastics. I suspect the same is true for AI.
The model has to be trained, refined, etc. You running it off grid isn’t the entire process, but I agree with you in a different sense.
If not AI, then there would be some other kind of compute taking up server capacity. It’s on the data centers to solve this one, not AI.
yea but the models are already trained and noone pays to use the open source ones, so you’re not really contributing to the training greenhouse gas emissions if you use an open source gen ai model locally.
Training a model isn’t free. It takes money and compute. That’s also the greenhouse emissions. Even if you don’t pay for any model and run it locally using solar, you’ve still got to consider what came before.
There exists an alternative that uses a lot less power. And also that power is going to get spent no matter what anyway.
From construction of three data centers or everyday use. Weird wording this whole article.
