• ayyy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 minutes ago

    Your article doesn’t even claim that. Do you have any idea just how carbon intensive a flight is?

  • AndiHutch@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    5 hours ago

    It also pollutes the mind of ignorant people with misinformation. Not that that is anything new. But I do think objective truth is very important in a democratic society. It reminds me of that video that used to go around that showed Sinclair Broadcasting in like 20 some different ‘local’ broadcast news all repeating the same words verbatim. It ended with ‘This is extremely dangerous to our democracy’. With AI being added to all the search engines, it is really easy to look something and unknowingly get bombarded with false info pulled out of the dregs of internet. 90% of people don’t verify the answer to see if it is based in reality.

  • lime!@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    idk if that’s the intended takeaway from those numbers.

    According to AllAboutAI analysis, global AI processing generates over 260,930 kilograms of CO₂ monthly from ChatGPT alone, equivalent to 260 transatlantic flights, with 1 billion daily queries consuming 300 MWh of electricity.

    according to the faa there are on average 5500 planes in the air every day, and while i couldn’t find an exact number there seem to be between 350 and 1 200 transatlantic flights every day, depending on season.

    260 tons is still massive, but let’s not kid ourselves. it’s about equivalent to producing 12 new american-size cars.

    • very_well_lost@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      260,930 kilograms of CO₂ monthly from ChatGPT alone

      ChatGPT has the most marketing, but it’s only part of the AI ecosystem… and honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if other AI products are bigger now. Practically every time someone does a Google search, Gemini AI spits out a summary whether you wanted it or not — and Google processes more than 8 billion search queries per day. That’s a lot of slop.

      There are also more bespoke tools that are being pushed aggressively in enterprise. Microsoft’s Copilot is used extensively in tech for code generation and code reviews. Ditto for Claude Code. And believe me, tech companies are pushing this shit hard. I write code for a living, and the company I work for is so bullish on AI that they’ve mandated that us devs have to use it every day if we want to stay employed. They’re even tracking our usage to make sure we comply… and I know I’m not alone in my experience.

      All of that combined probably still doesn’t reach the same level of CO² emissions as global air travel, but there are a lot more fish in this proverbial pond than just OpenAI, and when you add them all up, the numbers get big. AI usage is also rising much, much faster than air travel, so it’s really only a matter of time before it does cross that threshold.

    • otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Just goes to show that you don’t even need AI to spread misinformation! Haha

    • Artisian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Thank you.

      Idk if LLMs can tell which number is bigger. But we already knew humans can’t.

    • leftthegroup@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Yes, but there’s zero fucking actual benefit.

      Seeing memes posted here that use AI while sitting on it is the most confusing thing to me.

      Just… don’t use it, people. The hole burning in AI bros’ pockets will close up if you just stop making it profitable. Even the free ones are making money with ads. Don’t use it, even for a joke.

      • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        6 hours ago

        People like you wouldn’t have seen the benefit in cars vs horse and carriages, computers vs typewriters and books, or watches vs sundials.

        I bet you think that the only thing AI is used for is ChatGPT style conversations too.

        • very_well_lost@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          wouldn’t have seen the benefit in cars

          Yeah, because the widespread adoption of cars turned out to be such a great idea with no negative consequences… But even if you ignore the glaringly obvious negatives, AI still doesn’t come anywhere close to having the practical utility as the modern car. At least a car can carry out its advertised function without issues.

          I’ve been using AI almost daily for several years now, as a function of my job. It’s garbage tech. Most of the things it’s supposed to be good for it downright sucks at, and the stuff it is good at has already been possible using simpler, more reliable systems for years — sometimes even decades. The situation isn’t really improving, either. Models are using more energy, consuming more data, and doing more computation than ever before… but the results are still embarrassingly underwhelming. Anyone who’s bothered to educate themselves on the math and method behind the models knows by now that the current generation of AI is dead-end technology, and anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant of the technical details, has a vested financial interest in AI, or both.

          It also really fucking irritates me to be constantly called a Luddite by people who don’t even know how this technology fucking works… No, I don’t hate AI because I’m scared of technology, or “progress” or whatever the fuck. I’ve made a career working in technology. I love tech… or I used to, before everyone lost their god damn minds praying to Sam Altman and his horrifyingly expensive golden idol. No, I hate AI because it’s demonstrably bad technology.

          • hisao@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            20 minutes ago

            I personally enjoy using it to the point I’m ready to pay for it. It helps me figuring out rather complex things where I wouldn’t even know what to type into a normal search engine to start tackling the problem. Imo, both forcing people to use it and forbidding people to use it, is making people unhappy. Just let people work the way they want to.

            Yesterday I got just a regular ChatGPT explaining me how to convert some geometry into screen space using inverted transform matrix of the camera and dividing x,y by z in camera space to get the projection and then normalizing using min/max x,y, then after I got some bad results trying to get those numbers into the place where I need them, writing me a script that transforms my node-based Blender geonodes setup into JSON (just for the sake of giving this JSON to ChatGPT for analysis), then after reading this JSON explained to me some advanced control and data flow intricacies of geonodes and recommended a setup I could use to reshape control and data flow the way I need. This is all rather useful and would take more time and effort to gather all this information by myself. And it’s not like I’m not learning anything, it just makes learning faster.

            spoiler

        • leftthegroup@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Theoretically, sure there’s potential. But it shouldn’t be getting used as a commercial product in the meantime.

          Especially generative. Letting it write, compose, create… All of that is 1,000% a mistake. The kind accessible to the public can’t currently create at scale without unethical access to source material.

          It shouldn’t be getting shoehorned into every job possible while it’s still in this pre-alpha kind of state.

          Although I don’t actually know the ratio of research use vs casual use, tbf. But this shit gotta be litigated and used properly with proper guidelines, not just thrown out like this.

          It’s still way too early for this shit. Our willingness as a species to just jump into new tech should have been tempered to be smarter by now.

          Maybe I would’ve been reluctant about those technologies. But I am convinced with data. And so far I’ve only seen problems with it, no actual benefits.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Same. And they basically jizz their pants when they see a practical use for AI, but 9 out of 10 times there’s already a cheaper and more reliable solution they won’t even entertain.

    • GhostlyPixel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      I’ve mentioned it before but my boss’s boss said only 86% of employees in his department use AI daily and it’s one of his annual goals to get that to 100%. He is obsessed.

      • ramble81@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 hours ago

        They’re salivating at the chance to reduce head count and still make money. Employees are by far the largest cost for any company. They hate paying it out when it could be for them.

  • Rimu@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 hours ago

    The emoji usage, heading & bold text pattern makes me certain the article was written using AI.

  • HubertManne@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 hours ago

    This is my main issue with it. I think its useful enough but only if it uses about the same energy as you would use doing whatever without it. Most conversations I had with someone trying to convince me it does not use to much power end up being very much like crypto ones were it keeps on being apples to oranges and the energy consumption seems to much. Im hoping hardware can be made to get the power use lower the way graphics cards did. I want to see querying an llm using about the same as searching for the answer or lower.

  • blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Makes me wonder what they are doing to reach these figures.
    Because I can run many models at home and it wouldn’t require me to be pouring bottles of water on my PC, nor it would show on my electricity bill.

    • Artisian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Well, most of the carbon footprint for models is in training, which you probably don’t need to do at home.

      That said, even with training they are not nearly our leading cause of pollution.

      • REDACTED@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Article says that training o4 required equalivent amount of energy compared to powering san francisco for 3 days

      • very_well_lost@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Billions. Practically every Google search runs through Gemini now, and Google handles more search queries per day than there are humans on Earth.

  • maccam912@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    What does it mean to consume water? Like it’s used to cool something and then put back in a river? Or it evaporates? It’s not like it can be used in some irrecoverable way right?

    • morto@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      if they take the water and don’t return to the source, there will be less available water in the water body, and it can lead to scarcity. If they take it and return, but at a higher temperature, or along with pollutants, it can impact the life in the water body. If they treat the water before returning, to be closest to the original properties, there will be little impact, but it means using more energy and resources for the treatment

    • lime!@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 hours ago

      “using” water tends to mean that it needs to be processed to be usable again. you “use” water by drinking it, or showering, or boiling pasta too.

    • Flagstaff@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      I think the point is that it evaporates and may return as rain, which is overwhelmingly acid rain or filled with microplastics or otherwise just gets dirty and needs to be cleaned or purified again.

    • kibiz0r@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      They need to use very pure water, and it evaporates completely, so it must be continually replenished.

      • Hackworth@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Need is a strong word. There are much more efficient ways to cool data centers. They’ve just chosen the most wasteful way because it’s the cheapest (for them).

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Generating bullshit that isn’t really that useful.

    Remember when the Apple Newton “revolutionized” computing with handwriting recognition?

    No, of course not, because the whole thing sucked and vanished outside of old Doonesbury cartoons. LOL

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      My peer used the newton for comp sci class notes. Daily. Exclusively.

      Then she went on to mastermind the behaviour and tactics of Myth: The Fallen Lords.

      It’s tenuous, but I say that’s causal.

  • ReCursing@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 hours ago

    It’s using energy, we need more renewables. That’s not a problem with AI. Direct your opprobrium where it belongs

  • Deceptichum@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Shame to see this clickbait blog misinfo here, but the anti-ai sloppers wont let that stop them.

  • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 hours ago

    As soon as you see water consumption being called an issue you know it’s not to be taken seriously. Water doesn’t just disappear.

    • gens@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Water has to be cleaned. It is renewable, not free. My city has many sources, but most places where they build datacenters do not. It is a real problem

      Either way the biggest proble, IMO, is the pressure on the electric grid. If the asshats building the centers would cooperate with others, there would be much less problems.

      As for power usage, yea its a lot but still not an insane amount. The image and video generation uses a LOT more then text.

      • very_well_lost@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        59 minutes ago

        It is renewable, not free.

        “Renewable” also doesn’t mean shit if the resource is being consumed faster than it’s being renewed. Ask the people who used to live on the shores of the Aral Sea how “renewable” their water was.