"ChatGPT consumes a lot of energy in the process, up to 25 times more than a Google search. Additionally, a lot of water is also used in cooling for the servers that run all that software. Per conversation of about 20 to 50 queries, half a litre of water evaporates – a small bottle, in other words."
AI is predicted to consume twice as much energy as the whole of France by 2030
Training GPT3, took 1,287 MWh (Megawatt hours) of electricity.
@gerrymcgovern and, to be clear, just because the water is evaporated into the atmosphere does NOT mean it is instantly reusable.
If you draw water from an aquifer faster than that aquifer's recharge rate, the sediment surrounding the reservoir will compact and subside, leading to a permanent capacity reduction. This is already happening to aquifers around the world: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41933-z
@gerrymcgovern So they do, what of it? Did they steal the power? Did they force anyone to use it? What's the message here: new technologies not as efficient as older technologies?
How would you specifically target AI to enforce lower power use?
Am I gonna have to explain to my electric company why I game on a cool PC or sometimes use an electric space heater?
@Chee_Koala
We are in the beginning of a global environmental collapse driven by the massive overconsumption of energy and materials causing the degradation of water, soil, air, biodiversity, and along comes AI with massive new energy and material demands. That's the so what. We're devouring our environment. To have any hope of avoiding catastrophic environmental collapse, we must massively reduce our energy and materials consumption. We must prioritize things that are truly useful.
"What is needed and what are the basics? Who will decide? 🫣"
That's the real crux of it. I read and agree in part with many of Mr. McGovern's posts and boosts, but I disagree about AIs utility. Were I choosing, many other things would get cut before AI. Who chooses?
@HumanServitor
I don't doubt the power and potential of AI. I've been reading up on it since the 1980s. This modern AI has been designed by advertising agencies (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon) with the purpose of creating functioning addicts to drive consumption. It will excel at this. It is the ultimate Persuader and Enforcer of the Growth Death Cult. Once we were human. Then we were consumers. Now we become devourers.
But many (most, really) of the individuals In the machines that comprise those corporations are also concerned, environmentally-minded, socially conscious people. I don't want to count them out. I feel as though we are at a time of reckoning with capitalism's ethical failures that would occur even without the urgent pressure of the climatic doom we've sown. Wishful thinking maybe.
@tobi82
I think the answer to what is necessary must come from a common conversation within the community. A deep, long conversation and a consensus view has some chance along the path to wisdom. The conversation must also involve listening to what the birds and the bees, the fish, the water, and the trees, want. We can only save our environment if we first truly become part of it again. What I'm talking about is the opposite of what we think of as individualism.
I couldn't agree more.
I am just afraid. From a historical perspective, when people were starving and dying, they cried out for change. And then we need to be
lucky that there will be politicians and leaders in place to propose a revolution.
The future you just described.
In these situations, I often think of Samuel Beckett, the ultimate Irish cynic and fatalist. And yet, when he was needed, Samuel Beckett joined the French Resistance. He fought so that he and others could be free to not to believe in anything.
@uanrah@gerrymcgovern@Chee_Koala
My great-grandfather never left the village where he was born, except for a trip to France in 1914. He was happy. My grandmother never left the country where she was born until she was in her 60s, if you exclude the wedding trip. And my mother never left the country where she was born until she was in her 40s. She was unhappy with that 😅 But I get your point. Less from everything might work. Still, who will decide.
I’ve moved countries 4 times, so my story is very different than your grandparents’.
But, to your point of view”Who will decide?”
In pluralistic societies, I hope everyone will be free to decide for themselves, first and foremost. We have scientific evidence to show what works — such as Project Drawdown.
Regulation is dearly needed too, based on science (not lobbyism). Money and panic give poor advice.
That's the thing though: "everyone will be free to decide for themselves" is mostly incompatible with "regulation is dearly needed". You either allow everyone to freely decide or limit (regulate) their behavior in some way.
Today, with scarcely any regulation, people (with the means) are free to choose, and they choose to travel regardless of the environmental damage it causes.
Theories of change address the complexity of freedom vs. the common good. Some people (“laggards”) won’t change unless they’re forced to. But we can make considerable progress without them.
All I’m saying is that regulation must be democratically legitimised.
P.S. What’s with the travel bashing? Not all travel is air travel.
If the majority don't suffer and feel the pain or fear, there will be no democratic process for change. At the moment, the majority believe it's just a problem for 'the other people'. The 'normal' people can go shopping and consume.
It's not the minority of "laggards" that doesn't want to change, it's the majority. Democracy is necessary to enact and legitimize these changes, but at the same time it means only small incremental changes are being accepted.
In the words of William Rees: "The politically acceptable is ecologically disastrous, while the ecologically necessary is politically impossible."
Thanks for sharing this study. There are others of this kind, and the results vary based on the actions proposed. I think it’s important to take all of them with a grain of salt:
People are notoriously bad at predicting their own behaviour. That’s why UX research never relies on questions of what people would do.
People are social creatures. If they see the majority of their colleagues or neighbours drive electric cars or bicycles, they’re more prepared to do so too than they’d admit if asked in isolation.
The actions proposed by the study are problematic. Some are too extreme:
Germany in particular has trouble shifting to electric cars because of heavy lobbying and FUD propaganda by legacy manufacturers. Just look at @SheDrivesMobility for more info on that.
I can imagine similar issues in EU car manufacturing countries such as Italy or France.
So, asking people what they would do is not the best way to predict change.
I agree these need to be taken with a grain of salt, and some of the poll questions are problematic. This isn't the only study of this kind though. I see them all as an indicator of where we stand as a society today, with all its imperfections, like the FUD you mentioned (which even a perfectly democratic society wouldn't be immune to).
It's also true what you say about social proof, but it cuts both ways. A neighbor may be influenced to drive a bike more, but can also be influenced to go on cruises or fly for vacation.
To me, flying is the litmus test of how seriously society treats climate change.
It is predominantly a freely chosen luxury. There is no wonder technology available to replace it. The CO2 impact of even a single flight is very high.
Given the above, I don't think it's a stretch to say that any society genuinely concerned about climate change would reduce their air travel.
It is a nice proposal. People are free to adopt it. Is there any indication that majority of people are? Or at least enough people to offset the number of people doing the opposite (i.e. flying more often)?
As to stopping subsidies, is that something that'd be supported by the public? Based on the previous poll, less than 50% in all countries surveyed support paying extra for flights.
"But as long as 57 corporations are responsible for 80% of emissions"
See, that's an example of marketing that's completely counterproductive. It makes a good headline and is easy for people to accept, because it removes the need for taking responsibility. But it hides the inconvenient truth that it's the majority of people, especially in the developed world, that benefit from (and thus are responsible for) fossil fuel use.
You’re falling for the „Individual CO2 footprint fallacy“ that was invented by big oil to divert attention and responsibility away from them, and shift the blame to us individuals.
The point is, if you manage to „fix“ the corporations, the individual footprint of all their customers immediately improves, whether they want it or not.
The point is that those 57 corporations don't exist in a vacuum. They produce what people demand, at a price people are willing to pay. And because climate-friendly production is more expensive than inconsiderate pollution and people don't want to pay for less destructive products, the world is what it is. As @immibis pointed out correctly, individuals and corporations are jointly responsible and accountable. @gerrymcgovern@jackofalltrades@tobi82@SheDrivesMobility@uanrah
Simple: Tax negative climate impact (based on the damage it actually causes for society), and the „willing to pay“ argument swings the other way. If the system is rigged (society pays for the damage, corporations take the profits) then the individual is quite helpless, regardless how much you would like to assign them accountability.
It isn’t. In German it‘s called Verursacherprinzip. Not sure if there is an equivalent in English. The idea is: You cause damage, you pay. This principle has two wonderful effects: 1. The expected damage is covered (and not dispersed into society as a whole), and 2. less damaging behavior is incentivized.
They should be, but no. There‘s another German word that explains it: Besitzstandswahrung. Unfortunately, Besitzstandswahrung trumps Verursacherprinzip most of the time.
People tend to be reluctant to accept the Verursacherprinzip because of those instances where it might „incentivize“ them to change their own behavior.
Perhaps you should've asked this question before inserting yourself into this conversation by accusing me of "falling for the individual CO2 footprint fallacy".
Right! Which was invented by big oil to make us feel guilty individually, so we would be distracted from demanding the necessary changes to the system — which would save the world but hugely impact big oil’s business.
All I’m asking is: Please do not proliferate the distraction. It worked all too well for 50 years already.
We should feel guilty and demand change. Right now we're collectively doing neither.
Feeling guilty is a step necessary for change. Without it we will continue to delude ourselves that it's someone else's (the rich / corporations / governments, take your pick) fault and we don't need to change at all.
That's the question of our times: whether we can collectively grow up and accept responsibility.
@intermobility@jackofalltrades@thomasgoldberg@immibis@gerrymcgovern@tobi82@SheDrivesMobility@uanrah we have to do both - vote for taxes on things that cause climate change & stop giving money to the corporations that are causing the most climate change. Carbon footprint doesn't really capture that, but neither does ignoring the impacts of our individual decisions. Who we bank with doesn't fit in the old carbon footprint model but absolutely makes a difference to the future climate. Similarly I only vote every few years, but when I bike to work or use a local credit union instead of a big bank:
I'm not giving money to a corporation that will be used to lobby my government against climate change
I'm making a visible choice in my own neighborhood
I'm making it easier for other people to make the same choices
Like not everybody can do everything, but we should all be doing something.
Add comment