HN reacts to a New Yorker piece on the "obscene energy demands of AI" with exactly the same arguments coiners use when confronted with the energy cost of blockchain - the product is valuable in of itself, demands for more energy will spur investment in energy generation, and what about the energy costs of painting oil on canvas, hmmmmmm??????

Maybe it's just my newness antennae needing calibrating, but I do feel the extreme energy requirements for what's arguably just a frivolous toy is gonna cause AI boosters big problems, especially as energy demands ramp up in the US in the warmer months. Expect the narrative to adjust to counter it.

all 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 23 points 2 years ago (1 child)

The pro-AI comments here remind me of possibly the worst opinion I’ve heard about fossil fuels, which was that we should burn them all now as fast as possible to develop newer technologies to magically solve all the problems generated from burning all the fossil fuels.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    There are a few bitcoiners out there who try to claim, with a straight face, that more bitcoin mining = more greener.

    As far as I can tell the argument basically boils down to "we'll just use SO MUCH electricity that the utility will have no choice but to invest in green energy just to keep up" -- but honestly I can't make heads or tails of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago*

    As far as I can tell the argument basically boils down to “we’ll just use SO MUCH electricity that the utility will have no choice but to invest in green energy just to keep up”

    yep. and I like using the rule 34 defense on them: "if that were desired, someone already would've made it"

    these fucking clowns permanently don't want to acknowledge (or just stay willfully ignorant about?) the fact that it's easier to do cost and regulatory arbitrage by hunting for presently-favourable miner locations from which to burn electricity than it is to invest into (and possibly, likely even, invent!) whole-ass new green tech with sufficient output for their preferred ourobouros

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Exchange presented without comment:

    My prediction: the advance of tech by AI will far surpasse what it consume in energy.

    To look at the energy consumption of current model is extremely short sighted. If AI create a new material, a new solar cell, advance fusion reactor is all of humanity that jump forward.

    Furthermore new generation of AI accelerators and new algorithms will improve efficiency by order of magnitute, it's still early days.

    For every good thing, come up with a bad.

    The material created will be a better poison/virus. The algorithm to keep the fusion tokamak from going boom will be at best 99% correct. The new solar cell? More exotic materials required than the current.

    Blind optimism is a vice we cannot afford.

    The post you're responding to doesn't argue from blind optimism, it argued a reasonably-expected gain in net beneficial effects.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Amazing how they just assume that this new future AI will actually work. Like there were not several AI winters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    or that the existing AI works. Some of the worst social damage is from AI systems deployed in the wild that don't even do their fucking job properly in the first place, let alone doing it evilly. (Many deployments are both evil and incompetent.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 2 years ago (6 children)
  • [+] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [+] -1 points 2 years ago* (2 children)
  • [–] [S] 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    From your syntax I can divine that you are mad at me (or rather, my submission) but for the life of me I don't understand why. Is it because I wrote "AI" instead of "the bad AI from BigTech using TWh to generate shitty hero images for blogs but not the good AI from the heroic researchers constructing our glorious future for the pure love of science" ?

    If so, nothing would please me more than for the "bad AI" to crash and burn, pauperize Sam Altman and all his bootlickers, and AI research to retreat to the academic caves to hibernate another AI winter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    every time I see responses like that I'm left wondering if it's from someone working in (or closely adjacent to) the field. someone with some eyes on the potential and Big Mad about the bullshit, but feeling unable to affect it in any manner

    a charitable interpretation (and wishful thinking perhaps?), but still

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I’m not mad at you at all, i basically agreed with you. i was just engaging in a more nuanced discussion…. Or trying to. the replies here seem fairly hostile so I think I’ll see myself out of this community.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    ah yes, the type of nuance that can’t survive even the extremely mild amount of pushback you’ve experienced in this thread. but since we’re “fairly hostile” and all that, how about I make sure your lying AI-pushing ass can’t show up in any of our threads again

    I should’ve known taking my time to explain our stance was a waste of my fucking time when you brought up nuance in the first place — the only time I see you shitheads give a fuck about that is when you’re looking to shift the Overton window while pretending to take a centrist position

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago
    1. It will get better, and in the case of language models, that could have profound impacts on society

    why is that a given?

    the materials research Deepmind published

    these results were extremely flawed and disappointing, in a way that’s highly reminiscent of the Bell Labs replication crisis

    1. There are other things being researched that are equally important that get little daylight, such as robotics and agentic AIs

    these get brought up a lot in marketing, but the academic results of attempting to apply LLMs and generative AI to these fields have also been extremely disappointing

    if you’re here seeking nuance, I encourage you to learn more about the history of academic fraud that occurred during the first AI boom and led directly to the AI winter. the tragedy of AI as a field is that all of the obvious fraud is and was treated with the same respect as the occasional truly useful computational technique

    I also encourage you to learn more about the Rationalist cult that steers a lot of decisions around AI (and especially AI with an AGI end goal) research. the communities on this instance have a long history of sneering at the Rationalists who would (years later) go on to become key researchers at essentially every large AI company, and that history has shaped the language we use. the podcast Behind the Bastards has a couple of episodes about the Rationalist cult and its relationship with AI research, and Robert Evans definitely does a better job describing it than I can

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    this is the general argument in favour of cryptocurrency, with the name changed. you don't seem to have argued that the actual reality of AI we have right now is not the same problem.

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

    Because I’m not arguing with OP, I’m largely agreeing with them. Generating silly images and doing school kids homework is not the promised land of AI the corporate overlords keep promising. But that’s not to suggest the field in general has zero uses. Crypto and AI are apples and oranges and while I’m not exactly sure what you mean by the arguments being the same, it would be possible for the same argument to be true for AI and not true for crypto, because AI has much more obvious use cases to benefit the common good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    "AI" is a marketing term for various at best slightly related technologies. If you mean LLMs or whatever, you'd need to be specific else you're not even defining the goalposts before setting them up with wheels.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    yeah, I definitely think machine learning has obvious use cases to benefit the common good (youtube auto captions being Actually Pretty Decent Now is one that comes to mind easily) but I'm much less certain about most of the stuff being presently marketed as "AI"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] [S] 10 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Can you tell me more about why you're pretty cool with ELIZA? 😉

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    AI is the name of the field of study. It has existed since the 60s. LLMs are neural networks one of the first and most widely used forms of AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Your "frivolous toy" argument interested me, apparently video games use 34 TWh a year

    If the random dude on HN is to be believed chatGPT uses 182M kWh or 0.182TWh a year.

    Not sure what to make of that.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments