▲ 602 ▼ Vote blue no matter who! (lemmy.ml) submitted 1 year ago by srubhut@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml 150 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 year ago (10 children) AI is quite energy intensive permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Achyu@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 1 year ago* (9 children) How energy intensive? Like, compared to random cat videos on youtube n all? And would the addition of renewable energy be able to handle it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] LwL@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (8 children) Using it, not all that energy intensive (one llm use is roughly the same as 3 pre-ai-bullshit google searches iirc). Training it, very energy intensive. Yes it would but we haven't even replaced all our previous needs with renewables so it aint helping. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 22 points 1 year ago (7 children) Using it, not all that energy intensive According to this article, this is not considered true anymore: As conversations with experts and AI companies made clear, inference, not training, represents an increasing majority of AI’s energy demands and will continue to do so in the near future. It’s now estimated that 80–90% of computing power for AI is used for inference. I think there's a reason why OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and Facebook hold the energy consumption and water usage numbers so close to their chest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] LwL@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago Oh damn. Very good article btw. According to numbers floating around online, thiat would mean one llama query is around as expensive as 10 google searches. And it's likely that those costs will increase further. It still seems like the biggest factor here is the scale of adaptation. Unfortunately the total energy costs of AI might even scale exponentially since the more complex the queries get, the better the responses will likely be. And that will further drive adaptation. This pace is so clearly unsustainable it's horrifying, and while it was obvious to some degree, it seems it's worse than I thought. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (4 children) America produced 4,000TWH of electricity a year. This report says “22% of household consumption in 2028”, which if I commit the faux pass of mixing data it gets me 7% of US power consumption. 7% is a fucking lot though?? That's an immense amount of power going towards slop instead of making our lives better or growing the economy or actually being productive. It's like we just decided to start burning our limited reserves of natural gas for fun. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) The situation is already apocalyptic. Making it even worse just means we all die even faster. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) The world won't end, but we are absolutely on track for billions to die. If not from cataclysmic climate change, then from the inevitable start of WW3 triggered by climate change. Things are, in fact, really fucking bad. We don't need even more bullshit making it even worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Achyu@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 1 year ago* (9 children) How energy intensive? Like, compared to random cat videos on youtube n all? And would the addition of renewable energy be able to handle it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] LwL@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (8 children) Using it, not all that energy intensive (one llm use is roughly the same as 3 pre-ai-bullshit google searches iirc). Training it, very energy intensive. Yes it would but we haven't even replaced all our previous needs with renewables so it aint helping. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 22 points 1 year ago (7 children) Using it, not all that energy intensive According to this article, this is not considered true anymore: As conversations with experts and AI companies made clear, inference, not training, represents an increasing majority of AI’s energy demands and will continue to do so in the near future. It’s now estimated that 80–90% of computing power for AI is used for inference. I think there's a reason why OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and Facebook hold the energy consumption and water usage numbers so close to their chest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] LwL@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago Oh damn. Very good article btw. According to numbers floating around online, thiat would mean one llama query is around as expensive as 10 google searches. And it's likely that those costs will increase further. It still seems like the biggest factor here is the scale of adaptation. Unfortunately the total energy costs of AI might even scale exponentially since the more complex the queries get, the better the responses will likely be. And that will further drive adaptation. This pace is so clearly unsustainable it's horrifying, and while it was obvious to some degree, it seems it's worse than I thought. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (4 children) America produced 4,000TWH of electricity a year. This report says “22% of household consumption in 2028”, which if I commit the faux pass of mixing data it gets me 7% of US power consumption. 7% is a fucking lot though?? That's an immense amount of power going towards slop instead of making our lives better or growing the economy or actually being productive. It's like we just decided to start burning our limited reserves of natural gas for fun. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) The situation is already apocalyptic. Making it even worse just means we all die even faster. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) The world won't end, but we are absolutely on track for billions to die. If not from cataclysmic climate change, then from the inevitable start of WW3 triggered by climate change. Things are, in fact, really fucking bad. We don't need even more bullshit making it even worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LwL@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (8 children) Using it, not all that energy intensive (one llm use is roughly the same as 3 pre-ai-bullshit google searches iirc). Training it, very energy intensive. Yes it would but we haven't even replaced all our previous needs with renewables so it aint helping. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 22 points 1 year ago (7 children) Using it, not all that energy intensive According to this article, this is not considered true anymore: As conversations with experts and AI companies made clear, inference, not training, represents an increasing majority of AI’s energy demands and will continue to do so in the near future. It’s now estimated that 80–90% of computing power for AI is used for inference. I think there's a reason why OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and Facebook hold the energy consumption and water usage numbers so close to their chest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] LwL@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago Oh damn. Very good article btw. According to numbers floating around online, thiat would mean one llama query is around as expensive as 10 google searches. And it's likely that those costs will increase further. It still seems like the biggest factor here is the scale of adaptation. Unfortunately the total energy costs of AI might even scale exponentially since the more complex the queries get, the better the responses will likely be. And that will further drive adaptation. This pace is so clearly unsustainable it's horrifying, and while it was obvious to some degree, it seems it's worse than I thought. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (4 children) America produced 4,000TWH of electricity a year. This report says “22% of household consumption in 2028”, which if I commit the faux pass of mixing data it gets me 7% of US power consumption. 7% is a fucking lot though?? That's an immense amount of power going towards slop instead of making our lives better or growing the economy or actually being productive. It's like we just decided to start burning our limited reserves of natural gas for fun. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) The situation is already apocalyptic. Making it even worse just means we all die even faster. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) The world won't end, but we are absolutely on track for billions to die. If not from cataclysmic climate change, then from the inevitable start of WW3 triggered by climate change. Things are, in fact, really fucking bad. We don't need even more bullshit making it even worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 22 points 1 year ago (7 children) Using it, not all that energy intensive According to this article, this is not considered true anymore: As conversations with experts and AI companies made clear, inference, not training, represents an increasing majority of AI’s energy demands and will continue to do so in the near future. It’s now estimated that 80–90% of computing power for AI is used for inference. I think there's a reason why OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and Facebook hold the energy consumption and water usage numbers so close to their chest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] LwL@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago Oh damn. Very good article btw. According to numbers floating around online, thiat would mean one llama query is around as expensive as 10 google searches. And it's likely that those costs will increase further. It still seems like the biggest factor here is the scale of adaptation. Unfortunately the total energy costs of AI might even scale exponentially since the more complex the queries get, the better the responses will likely be. And that will further drive adaptation. This pace is so clearly unsustainable it's horrifying, and while it was obvious to some degree, it seems it's worse than I thought. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (4 children) America produced 4,000TWH of electricity a year. This report says “22% of household consumption in 2028”, which if I commit the faux pass of mixing data it gets me 7% of US power consumption. 7% is a fucking lot though?? That's an immense amount of power going towards slop instead of making our lives better or growing the economy or actually being productive. It's like we just decided to start burning our limited reserves of natural gas for fun. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) The situation is already apocalyptic. Making it even worse just means we all die even faster. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) The world won't end, but we are absolutely on track for billions to die. If not from cataclysmic climate change, then from the inevitable start of WW3 triggered by climate change. Things are, in fact, really fucking bad. We don't need even more bullshit making it even worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LwL@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago Oh damn. Very good article btw. According to numbers floating around online, thiat would mean one llama query is around as expensive as 10 google searches. And it's likely that those costs will increase further. It still seems like the biggest factor here is the scale of adaptation. Unfortunately the total energy costs of AI might even scale exponentially since the more complex the queries get, the better the responses will likely be. And that will further drive adaptation. This pace is so clearly unsustainable it's horrifying, and while it was obvious to some degree, it seems it's worse than I thought. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (4 children) America produced 4,000TWH of electricity a year. This report says “22% of household consumption in 2028”, which if I commit the faux pass of mixing data it gets me 7% of US power consumption. 7% is a fucking lot though?? That's an immense amount of power going towards slop instead of making our lives better or growing the economy or actually being productive. It's like we just decided to start burning our limited reserves of natural gas for fun. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) The situation is already apocalyptic. Making it even worse just means we all die even faster. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) The world won't end, but we are absolutely on track for billions to die. If not from cataclysmic climate change, then from the inevitable start of WW3 triggered by climate change. Things are, in fact, really fucking bad. We don't need even more bullshit making it even worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (4 children) America produced 4,000TWH of electricity a year. This report says “22% of household consumption in 2028”, which if I commit the faux pass of mixing data it gets me 7% of US power consumption. 7% is a fucking lot though?? That's an immense amount of power going towards slop instead of making our lives better or growing the economy or actually being productive. It's like we just decided to start burning our limited reserves of natural gas for fun. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) The situation is already apocalyptic. Making it even worse just means we all die even faster. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) The world won't end, but we are absolutely on track for billions to die. If not from cataclysmic climate change, then from the inevitable start of WW3 triggered by climate change. Things are, in fact, really fucking bad. We don't need even more bullshit making it even worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) The situation is already apocalyptic. Making it even worse just means we all die even faster. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) The world won't end, but we are absolutely on track for billions to die. If not from cataclysmic climate change, then from the inevitable start of WW3 triggered by climate change. Things are, in fact, really fucking bad. We don't need even more bullshit making it even worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) The situation is already apocalyptic. Making it even worse just means we all die even faster. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) The world won't end, but we are absolutely on track for billions to die. If not from cataclysmic climate change, then from the inevitable start of WW3 triggered by climate change. Things are, in fact, really fucking bad. We don't need even more bullshit making it even worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) The world won't end, but we are absolutely on track for billions to die. If not from cataclysmic climate change, then from the inevitable start of WW3 triggered by climate change. Things are, in fact, really fucking bad. We don't need even more bullshit making it even worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) The world won't end, but we are absolutely on track for billions to die. If not from cataclysmic climate change, then from the inevitable start of WW3 triggered by climate change. Things are, in fact, really fucking bad. We don't need even more bullshit making it even worse. permalink fedilink source parent