When you picture the tech industry, you probably think of things that don’t exist in physical space, such as the apps and internet browser on your phone. But the infrastructure required to store all this information – the physical datacentres housed in business parks and city outskirts – consume massive amounts of energy. Despite its name, the infrastructure used by the “cloud” accounts for more global greenhouse emissions than commercial flights. In 2018, for instance, the 5bn YouTube hits for the viral song Despacito used the same amount of energy it would take to heat 40,000 US homes annually.

This is a hugely environmentally destructive side to the tech industry. While it has played a big role in reaching net zero, giving us smart meters and efficient solar, it’s critical that we turn the spotlight on its environmental footprint. Large language models such as ChatGPT are some of the most energy-guzzling technologies of all. Research suggests, for instance, that about 700,000 litres of water could have been used to cool the machines that trained ChatGPT-3 at Microsoft’s data facilities. It is hardly news that the tech bubble’s self-glorification has obscured the uglier sides of this industry, from its proclivity for tax avoidance to its invasion of privacy and exploitation of our attention span. The industry’s environmental impact is a key issue, yet the companies that produce such models have stayed remarkably quiet about the amount of energy they consume – probably because they don’t want to spark our concern.

  • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Not really. Every energy solution produces some kind of waste which can’t be recycled. Saving energy is always good. It also saves budget and space. I’d say your opinion is a contribution to very unsustainable future.

      • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        They have batteries, solar panels take space and lose efficiency over time (can be recycled I think) and I think wind turbines use some lubricants and paint that are always bad for environment. These still aren’t too bad though. Nuclear energy is worse in this department. Used fuel cells can only be recycled as weapons which is worse than no recycling

      • Cort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I didn’t downvote but wine turbines are not easily recyclable due to all the fiberglass and resin. They’re finding new uses but lots still get buried in landfills when they’re decommissioned

        • AIhasUse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Thanks, I appreciate the answer. The downvotes for questions blow my mind. It’s like there is some group of people that has been tricked into thinking that questions are an attack or something.

          • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            The issue is that there are a lot of bad actors “just asking questions”. You’re not one. A lot of folks have a hard time assuming good intentions because of all the shit people pushing bad agendas by feigning ignorance.

            I try to assume the best, but I don’t always make it.

            • cygnus@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              I haven’t seen much sealioning on Lemmy. People here tend to be pretty upfront with their (strongly-held) opinions.