- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
Please actually read the article before downvoting me into oblivion, or debunk it before just shouting AI = BAD I’m also against AI for privacy reasons, but can we please stop pretending that it’s destroying the environment.
It would be fantastic if our other GHG-producing activities were held to the same level of criticism as AI.
You’re gonna get downvotes defending AI on Lemmy - our Overton window is *tiny*.
*as long as we don’t count the shit load of electricity spent training the model.
It’s already included in the 3Wh calculation
Which is only ever done once. Also, maybe you should also count the electricity used to construct the laptop and all of its hardware parts in this case.
They only raise beef once too unless you’re pretending there only one ai model ever trained you’re purposefully trying to create a false narrative.
You’re being a sophist by comparing those. It’s non-comparable type of periodicity. AI doesn’t need continuous training to function. In theory, eveyone could just stop and settle on models we have already and they would continue to work forever. Training models is only needed for creating better improved models. And you can count really big models like ChatGPT ones on fingers. You can’t raise beef once and keep people fed forever. Raising beef has the same type of periodicity as running already-trained model, something that is continuously done for industry to function.
Could yes but they are definitely training new ai’s. So same as I’ve cut most meats out of my diet I’ll do the same with ai and talk loudly about how catastrophic their water and electricity usage is until it’s no longer true. Both are not good for the environment and both are completely unnecessary to our survival.