People on Lemmy love to cry AI IS BURNING THE PLANNET but have they ever really looked at the numbers?

  • 1 kg Beef = 60kg CO2 - source
  • 1000km Return flight = 314kg CO2 - source
  • 1 Bitcoin transaction = 645kg of CO2 - source
  • 1000 AI prompts = 3kg of CO2 - source including training

I'm a strong advocate for privacy, and I myself am Anti generative AI in many ways, but can we please stop shouting that AI IS BRUNING THE PLANNET, it weakens our position to push back at actual issues with AI like privacy.

Here is a detailed breakdown debunking that AI is destroying the planet: https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversations-about

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 year ago (8 children)

So ChatGPT isn't as polluting as the beef industry, what's your point? We can go on asking for LLMs to make pictures of big tiddy anime girls and the answers to simple questions that it still gets wrong because people eat meat still?

Just like bitcoin and all the other pump and dump cryptos, LLM chatbots created a market that didn't exist before that needlessly adds excess pollution (and to be clear, I agree with OPs primary point that the environmental impact isn't the worst thing about them), and they're trying to force them into every aspect of our lives whether they're suited to it or not.

Highlighting the environmental (and commercial, social and privacy) concerns is one tool to get policy makers to maybe think twice about signing another huge deal to get ChatGPT embedded in yet another part of our lives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's highlighting hypocrisy. It's asking: do you take this problem seriously, or are you just complaining?

    Having LLMs shoved into everything is a serious problem. But it's a problem the way that forced updates and invasion of privacy were already a problem. Fixating on energy use is pretense. It's working backwards to point at the negative externalities of something you've already made conclusions about, as if those factors were relevant to your conclusion. Using that as rhetoric is the nature of bad faith.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    It’s highlighting hypocrisy. It’s asking: do you take this problem seriously, or are you just complaining?

    That's a very black and white way of looking at things.

    I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of what you said, but presenting it as a false dichotomy like that undermines your argument about other peoples bad faith approaches to rhetoric.

    edit: as do downvotes with no response when called out.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    My point?

    If you complain the world is burning because of AI but you eat beef, you are contributing >2000 times as much as a non-beef eater who uses AI. Making you a hypocrite who is mad at the wrong things.

    Neither AI not beef are a necessity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Necessity is relative and contextual, there are legitimately places where eating meat is required because the caloric and nutritional consequences of not eating meat are life threatening.

    Lack of access(for various reasons) to sufficient non-meat food is lacking.

    These reasons are usually problems that can be solved, so on a long enough timescale (and assuming the right steps are taken to remedy the situation) then this problem goes away, but to disregard this proportion of the population is to leave an opening.

    It's not the norm though, AFAIK.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (3 children)

    Necessity is relative and contextual, there are legitimately places where eating meat is required because the caloric and nutritional consequences of not eating meat are life threatening.

    Name one. The gobi desert?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

    TL;DR;

    Any place people can/do starve to death, but might potentially have easier physical access to processed(ultraprocesed ?) foods or potentially, local animals.

    See below for specifics.


    Mainland US?

    There are plenty of people living at or below the poverty line, the nature of the food industry as it stands means that easy and affordable access to a non-meat diet isn't always viable.

    There are people dying of lack of access to food in general, let alone non-meat food, but let's focus on the latter for now.

    Let's take the outdated atomic family, 2 adults 2.4 children.

    Both adults working more than full time, kids in school full time.

    Local access to enough viable non-meat foodstuffs isn't always feasible within budgetary and time constraints see : Food Deserts

    I mentioned caloric and nutritional for a reason, it's possible to get enough calories and not be nutritionally sound in the medium to long term.

    You eat what you can afford and by afford i mean in terms of both fiscal and time constraints.

    There are of course vegetarian and vegan options for meals, rice, beans, lentils, vegetables etc.

    Assuming you can get a hold of those things in enough quantities, all the time, forever.

    I'm not saying it's everyone all the time, I’m saying extreme poverty exists, people starve and starving people don't always have the luxury of taking the moral high-ground.

    Should society be like this? fuck no.

    Is it , in some places? absolutely.

    Does the Venn diagram of these people and the people complaining about AI being worse than the meat industry line up? i doubt it, but my point was :

    Necessity is relative and contextual, there are legitimately places where eating meat is required because the caloric and nutritional consequences of not eating meat are life threatening.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    How is it other people's fault. Nobody made you guys discriminante against black people and only eat junk food

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    You asked for an example, i gave you one.

    If you need some clarification, just point at the bit that's confusing and i'll see what i can do.

    .....

    Yeah, ignore all the below stuff, i'll leave it there for posterity but i just a had a quick look through your history and i want nothing to do with any of that.

    ok, i know i probably shouldn't feed the trolls, but I’m genuinely interested how you got from "here is the example you asked for" to

    > How is it other people’s fault. Nobody made you guys discriminante against black people and only eat junk food

    No blame was assigned, no discrimination was mentioned, nor any specific ethnicities, the only thing i explicitly mentioned was poverty and starvation, low quality food was sort of mentioned, referentially.

    The necessities of poverty is a bigger discussion and given how you did with this small one , i'll just save us both time and just skip that entirely.

    I'm also wondering who you mean by "you guys" who is it you think i am ?

    Also also, in case it's relevant, i picked the mainland US because you sounded like you thought it was only remote regions that had this problem, but Food Security is an issue in many places.

  • source
  • parent