- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Great, let’s increase pollution along with energy costs for the average person so people can have “advanced” predictive text algorithms and a new world of fap material. Literally, the worst “technology” since coal burning power plants.
And let’s not forget the “game-changing” technology that those coal plants are burning for, too: shitcoins.
It’s pretty great tech if you employ a lot of people whose only job is to handle customer complaints and you don’t really care if those complaints are handled well or not.
Write me a 5 page article on why we should all stop using plastic straws to prevent global warming.
We’re considering letting Oracle, Meta, and Microsoft (that I know of) reactivate or otherwise make use of nuclear power plants to power their AI ambitions. How long before that turns into owning and operating nuclear reactors in house? Now I’m not of the opinion that nuclear power is inherently unsafe but if I had to pick my worst case scenario of implementation it may well be letting big tech run a facility like that.
On the other hand, I see first hand on a daily basis the kind of power consumption we’re talking about putting to use for AI and that’s a huge fucking problem if you care about the environment at all. I don’t know what the right answer is. All I can say is I hope we invent scalable fusion reactors, or some other way to harness vast amounts of energy, very quickly. Otherwise this is not going to end well.
If that’s what they want, then make them pay for it. No subsidies for this bullshit.
I wish they would pay for it themselves. Microsoft is getting a $1.6 billion federal loan to restart Three Mile Island Unit 1, which was shut down because it was not profitable. They will probably find out that a half century old power plant is too expensive to run and shut it back down within a few years.
“But but but… AI will solve the pollution problem!!1!”
In the end, indeed it will.
You could just put regulations in place for these companies to follow. They will find a source of power and if you require that it is environmentally safe they will find green solutions.
“Could” is key here. You know as well as I that even in Europe, this isn’t going to happen.
Related: I did read somewhere that OpenAI’s Sam Altman invested US$370m in (tadaa) fusion - the energy source that’s been expected within 30 years for as long as I can remember. Like it or not , that’s never going to “fix” anything in 3 years time.
“Won’t have more pollution if everyone is dead from pollution and it’s effects” taps forehead
If i ever hear someone complain about CERN / LHC power consumption again i will just slap them.
I don’t understand the cost:benefit analysis here. All this cost for some shitty chatbots? Even the more practical uses for AI just don’t seem worth that cost.
It kind of feels like this is another symptom of wealth inequality where some people or companies are so wealthy that they can make unjustifiable investments like this.
I’d like to think that the AI bubble will pop and take these investors with it, but that’s probably wishful thinking.
It’s already stupid. Like usual, it’s just going to get more stupid.
Ok
