You can run a local LLM capable of assisting in software development for less energy than running a AAA video game. I’m not denying the environmental impact of the current AI landscape, but I kind of disagree that it’s intrinsic to LLMs as a whole, I think it’s more a symptom of capitalism and its disregard for sustainability causing everything it touches to have a high environmental cost.
Also, nearly all modern computing has high environmental costs, certainly all cloud computing. I think instead of focusing on AI only, it would be more helpful to engage in a broader discussion on how computing can be made more energy efficient as a whole, and do proper cost benefit analysis of all things we use computers for, including but not limited to LLMs. We may well still conclude from that process that we need to stop using LLMs, in which case we should.
If you’re against LLM use on environmental grounds (which I’m not disagreeing with), I submit to you that we should take the idea even further and things like gaming, video streaming, high frequency trading, social media, and any other nonessential computing should be on the same chopping block for the same reason. Applications of computing that we also use at scale with high environmental impacts, but that have been normalised and practically seen as a right by many of the same people against any amount of AI use (not saying that’s you, speaking generally). Why should AI be the only thing we raise concerns about if we’re to raise concerns? Doing environmental protection piecemeal by independently targeting single things and not the entire system has been shown time and time again to not work at best and make it worse at worst.
Currently, LLMs impact on electricity usage and fresh water usage across the world is HUGE.
The painful part to me is the choice on where to put the stress. Which areas to highlight and talk about.
Yes some weak LLMs can use comparatively little electricity. Yes some other industries use electricity, generate CO2 and consume fresh water, too. But the existence of other problems, to me, does not mean that eco impact of LLMs should be swept under the rug.
I’ll skip discussions about my persona. But most certainly golf courses or video games have orders of magnitude lower impact on electricity and watee than worldwide LLMs (mostly in datacenters).
You’ll hear no arguments from me. Let’s cut energy usage for a lot of things. Let’s read books more. Let’s spend more time outside. Let’s eat less red meat.
That isn’t some gotcha you think it is. A lot of people finding the alarm over AI have been working to reduce their carbon footprint
Everything in your first paragraph is contrary to your first sentence. Every single one of those is another argument, but using a turn of phrase and baiting was apparently more important that even making the first, best, and most relavent argument you brought-out.
The real clincher is that you then pretend the person you are replying to didn’t already make those arguments, well, and that you are disagreeing with them.
“This isn’t [the] gotcha you think it is”, really?
You can run a local LLM capable of assisting in software development for less energy than running a AAA video game. I’m not denying the environmental impact of the current AI landscape, but I kind of disagree that it’s intrinsic to LLMs as a whole, I think it’s more a symptom of capitalism and its disregard for sustainability causing everything it touches to have a high environmental cost.
Also, nearly all modern computing has high environmental costs, certainly all cloud computing. I think instead of focusing on AI only, it would be more helpful to engage in a broader discussion on how computing can be made more energy efficient as a whole, and do proper cost benefit analysis of all things we use computers for, including but not limited to LLMs. We may well still conclude from that process that we need to stop using LLMs, in which case we should.
If you’re against LLM use on environmental grounds (which I’m not disagreeing with), I submit to you that we should take the idea even further and things like gaming, video streaming, high frequency trading, social media, and any other nonessential computing should be on the same chopping block for the same reason. Applications of computing that we also use at scale with high environmental impacts, but that have been normalised and practically seen as a right by many of the same people against any amount of AI use (not saying that’s you, speaking generally). Why should AI be the only thing we raise concerns about if we’re to raise concerns? Doing environmental protection piecemeal by independently targeting single things and not the entire system has been shown time and time again to not work at best and make it worse at worst.
Currently, LLMs impact on electricity usage and fresh water usage across the world is HUGE.
The painful part to me is the choice on where to put the stress. Which areas to highlight and talk about.
Yes some weak LLMs can use comparatively little electricity. Yes some other industries use electricity, generate CO2 and consume fresh water, too. But the existence of other problems, to me, does not mean that eco impact of LLMs should be swept under the rug.
So, if one was to check your post history, they would find complaints about the energy usage of video games? The water usage of golf courses?
Or would we find neither, and learn instead that anti-AI is the only bandwagon you’ve hopped on because it is the most popular?
I’ll skip discussions about my persona. But most certainly golf courses or video games have orders of magnitude lower impact on electricity and watee than worldwide LLMs (mostly in datacenters).
You’ll hear no arguments from me. Let’s cut energy usage for a lot of things. Let’s read books more. Let’s spend more time outside. Let’s eat less red meat.
That isn’t some gotcha you think it is. A lot of people finding the alarm over AI have been working to reduce their carbon footprint
Everything in your first paragraph is contrary to your first sentence. Every single one of those is another argument, but using a turn of phrase and baiting was apparently more important that even making the first, best, and most relavent argument you brought-out.
The real clincher is that you then pretend the person you are replying to didn’t already make those arguments, well, and that you are disagreeing with them.
“This isn’t [the] gotcha you think it is”, really?
Bro whatever you’re smoking please share.
And his did you get that local LLM?