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.

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.

Additionally, as these companies aim to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, they may opt to base their datacentres in regions with cheaper electricity, such as the southern US, potentially exacerbating water consumption issues in drier parts of the world.

Furthermore, while minerals such as lithium and cobalt are most commonly associated with batteries in the motor sector, they are also crucial for the batteries used in datacentres. The extraction process often involves significant water usage and can lead to pollution, undermining water security. The extraction of these minerals are also often linked to human rights violations and poor labour standards. Trying to achieve one climate goal of limiting our dependence on fossil fuels can compromise another goal, of ensuring everyone has a safe and accessible water supply.

Moreover, when significant energy resources are allocated to tech-related endeavours, it can lead to energy shortages for essential needs such as residential power supply. Recent data from the UK shows that the country’s outdated electricity network is holding back affordable housing projects.

In other words, policy needs to be designed not to pick sectors or technologies as “winners”, but to pick the willing by providing support that is conditional on companies moving in the right direction. Making disclosure of environmental practices and impacts a condition for government support could ensure greater transparency and accountability.

  • @frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    23
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    The Sam Altman fans also say that AI would solve climate change in a jiffy. Problem is, we already have all the tech we need to solve it. We lack the political will to do it. AI might be able to improve our tech further, but if we lack the political will now, then AI’s suggestions aren’t going to fix it. Not unless we’re willing to subsume our governmental structures to AI. Frankly, I do not trust Sam Altman or any other techbro to create an AI that I would want to be governed by.

    What we end up with is that while AI might improve things, it almost certainly isn’t worth the energy being dumped into it.

    Edit: Yes, Sam Altman does actually believe this. That’s clear from his public statements about climate change and AI. Please don’t get into endless “he didn’t say exactly those words” debates, because that’s bullshit. He justifies massive AI energy usage by saying it will totally solve climate change. Totally.

    • @SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      177 months ago

      Frankly, I do not trust Sam Altman or any other techbro to create an AI that I would want to be governed by.

      “Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”

      ~ Frank Herbert, Dune

      • @frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Thing is, I could maybe be convinced that a sufficiently advanced AI would run society in a more egalitarian and equitable way than any existing government. It’s not going to come from techbros, though. They will 100% make an AI that favors techbros.

        Edit: almost forgot this part. Frank Herbert built a world ruled by a highly stratified feudal empire. The end result of that no thinking machine rule isn’t that good, either. He also based it on a lot of 1960s/70s ideas about drugs expanding the human mind that are just bullshit. Great novel, but its ideas shouldn’t be taken at face value.

    • Kilgore Trout
      link
      fedilink
      English
      17 months ago

      we already have all the tech we need to solve it

      And we already know “how to get to carbon goals” that Altman mentioned we need AI to figure out.

    • @afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -77 months ago

      You know I have never once heard anyone saying what you are saying that they are. I personally think it would be better for us to address bad arguments that are being made instead of ones we wish existed solely so we can argue with them.

        • @afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -47 months ago

          Claim:

          "The Sam Altman fans also say that AI would solve climate change in a jiffy. "

          What he said:

          "If we spend 1% of the world’s electricity training powerful AI, and that AI does figure out how to get (to carbon goals) that would be a massive win, (especially) if that 1% lets people live their lives better.”

          Were you just assuming I would take you at your word?

            • @afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -2
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Actually made after I posted that. Why do you keep lying? It’s messed up. This is low stakes internet comments.

              And no he didn’t say what you swore he said.

              • @frezik@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                27 months ago

                Because I’m not lying, you’re incapable of looking past the surface of Sam Altman’s obviously self serving comments.

                  • @frezik@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    -17 months ago

                    Unfortunately for you, we can actually see edit and post times on comments:

                    My comment, last edited May 30, 12:29:07 GMT-5.

                    Your comment, posted May 30, 1:55:04 GMT-5.

                    So it wasn’t an hour before. It was closer to 1.5 hours. You got me.

                    This isn’t just about internet points. You’re defending a shithead on the basis of “he didn’t say exactly those words”, as if context does not exist.