• souperk@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    While the consumption for AI train can be large, there are arguments to be made for its net effect in the long run.

    The article’s last section gives a few examples that are interesting to me from an environmental perspective. Using smaller problem-specific models can have a large effect in reducing AI emissions, since their relation to model size is not linear. AI assistance can indeed increase worker productivity, which does not necessarily decrease emissions but we have to keep in mind that our bodies are pretty inefficient meat bags. Last but not least, AI literacy can lead to better legislation and regulation.

    • JiveTurkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The argument that our bodies are inefficient meat bags doesn’t make sense. AI isn’t replacing the inefficient meat bag unless I’m unaware of an AI killing people off and so far I’ve yet to see AI make any meaningful dent in overall emissions or research. A chatgpt query can use 10x more power than a regular Google search and there is no chance the result is 10x more useful. AI feels more like it’s adding to the enshittification of the internet and because of its energy use the enshittification of our planet. IMO if these companies can’t afford to build renewables to support their use then they can fuck off.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Using smaller problem-specific models can have a large effect in reducing AI emissions

      Sure, if you consider anything at all to be “AI”. I’m pretty sure my spellchecker is relatively efficient.

      AI literacy can lead to better legislation and regulation.

      What do I need to read about my spellchecker? What legislation and regulation does it need?