Technology

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Do a little research. AI power usage isn't that much of a problem yet.

Okay.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/pollution-musk-unpermitted-xai-power-100200381.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/epa-exempts-off-grid-ai-power-plants-from-acid-rain-program-caps-affecting-60-sites/ar-AA28YctM

https://www.fastcompany.com/91229319/ai-data-centers-could-make-your-electric-bill-go-up-by-70

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-power-ai-data-centers-eminent-domain/

Power usage from AI data centers has already eclipsed power usage from all other data centers combined. If you can come up with a scenario where AI hasn't doubled in scale by 2030 by belching smoke into the atmosphere, I'll concede the point.

A lot of really good data is copyrighted

Yeah, and that's too fucking bad. If the people who made it don't want it to be used for AI training (and I don't think I've ever met a creator who has done the research on AI who does, even if they got paid), it shouldn't be.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it -2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If you can come up with a scenario where AI hasn’t doubled in scale by 2030 by belching smoke into the atmosphere

Nukes. Possibly fusion. Possibly fusion accelerated into reality by use of LLMs to solve some of the remaining challenges.

https://ourworldindata.org/how-much-energy-do-data-centers-and-artificial-intelligence-use

https://cryptoslate.com/stop-shaming-bitcoin-when-daily-streaming-ai-and-social-media-scrolling-shown-to-consume-double-the-energy/

If the people who made it don’t want it to be used for AI training (...speculation based on a 1/1 billionth sample...), it shouldn’t be.

But the people who made it do want it to be in public libraries, accessible, seen, heard and otherwise distributed - would the majority of them rather that AI be trained on exactly what they wrote, or just hear-say?

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

...So you insist that AI power use isn't a big problem right now, but your best case scenario for the future is that humanity gets nuked out of existence. By nukes that were designed using help from LLMs, which they haven't been shown to be able to help with.

You seem like a very serious person who is worth debating.

As for the data use thing, firstly, I don't know why the choices are between the actual work and hearsay. I don't know where you got those two options from. I also don't know what would be producing the hearsay (human? LLM? If the latter, are we straight up admitting to copyright laundering? Also, I thought training LLMs on output of previous LLMs caused model collapse). I especially don't know why you're asking me to speculate on what creatives want immediately after attacking my ability to speak on behalf of creatives. But since you are apparently asking me to do that, I think they'd prefer the hearsay, since the point is that they don't want the model to be able to imitate their work for anyone who asks for cheap, and in so doing, put them out of a job. Or worse, have the model agree to a job they would have said no to, and damage their credibility and brand.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it -1 points 1 month ago

You seem like a very serious person who is worth debating.

I'm sorry, you think this is a debate? It looks more like you parroting a bunch of whatever you like from your echo chambers, so go right on ahead.

Nukes above would refer to nuclear fission power generation which has, historically, been the cleanest least negatively impactful to human animal and plant health form of electrical power generation (per kWh generated) in history. When considering your non-renewable alternatives consider the wars fought for their control, the lives lost and ecological damage done in their extraction. When considering your renewable alternatives consider their ecological impact not only during operation, but also during construction and end of life disposal.

LLMs are accelerating research and development in the sciences and engineering - at least any actual scientists and engineers I have contact with are acknowledging their utility - not bolts of lightning from the sky universe altering changes, but helpful, in the way that computers and mechanical calculators before them were helpful - faster and easier to get things done than the previous alternatives.

I don’t know why the choices are between the actual work and hearsay.

Maybe think about it, then. Did you ever play "the telephone game" in school? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_game

If writers are producing valuable information, that information may be passed on to the next generation directly through their writings, or as repeated by people who have (in your esteemed estimation) read that information and then repeated it later in their lives whether intentionally, or indirectly, and usually somewhat inaccurately.

LLMs will be trained on something - would it be better for that something to be the original source material, or the regurgitations of it by employees hired by the LLM training companies? Employees who read something original in school and are now passing that knowledge into the LLM training as best they can remember?

parent

[–] Mwa -4 points 1 month ago* (5 children)

Do a little research and look at the actual numbers - yes, it could grow to become a problem, no - AI data centers aren’t anywhere near that kind of problem yet. At the moment, after over a year of hype and growth, AI datacenters use less electricity than Bitcoin miners (which, in my opinion, is too damn much electricity for Bitcoin, but it doesn’t seem to set the news on fire the way AI power usage does.)

but... but... i saw news about AI causing power grid issues,though i did also hear a power company shut down ai datacenter(s?) to free up electricity used .
i also forgot to add AI causing the ram crisis thing.

there should be some way to cycle that benefit back to the people who made it in the first place.

exactly,also good idea.

Bernie’s soverign wealth fund idea isn’t a bad one…

i think its about making people own the AI??

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 3 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Bernie’s soverign wealth fund idea isn’t a bad one…

i think its about making people own the AI??

It's modeled somewhat on the Alaska permanent fund, which is compensating Alaskans with profits from the oil being extracted from their state.

There are unlimited ways to screw it up, but if AI suddenly becomes ridiculously profitable, having 50% of those profits cycled into the general fund could pay for things like UBI...

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Mwa 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

thats sounds awesome

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it -2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Well, in part it answers the question "what if I lose my job to AI" - at least you don't become deadweight in the economy, you'd still have income to spend on housing, food and whatever else.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] raze2012@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

at least you don’t become deadweight in the economy

In theory, yes.

Reality: we already have shit welfare programs and I doubt UBI will fix it. I also doubt we'll even get to a point of UBI in my remaining career time. At least not without a lot of blood.

The present as is is pretty bad, I'd hope we can fix that before theorycrafting the future. economists 100 years prior theorycrafted 15 hour work weeks, and look how far we've come.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 1 month ago

Reality: we already have shit welfare programs and I doubt UBI will fix it.

Reality: we have 134 federal shit welfare programs, every one of them with some needs based proctological exam required prior to qualification to apply for possible consideration for aid as a last resort when the other 133 programs won't cover the needs. That is toxic bullshit driving guilt and shame among a majority of flyover state conservative voters who are in denial that their ass is on Federal assistance so they get vocal about how bad it all is (but quietly: don't you dare cancel MY aid program, I deserve it.)

Reality: every single living breathing human being in this country NEEDS a certain amount of money to pay for food, shelter, and if you happen to be fortunate enough to own your shelter outright and grow your own food, you have a shit ton of taxes to pay, so...

If we would start with UBI, shitcan all the piddly little needs based programs that provide less than UBI anyway, people could actually put the time, effort and emotional energy that's wasted on qualification for needs based programs into something positive. Even sitting on the fucking couch getting stoned while watching Netflix brings more positive energy to our country than the welfare programs.

In effect, after all the hoop jumping and contorted political favors, we have a progressive tax system that does provide UBI plus a dose of https://genius.com/The-clash-know-your-rights-lyrics Investigation, humiliation And if you cross your fingers, rehabilitation... and then it turns around and lowers the percentage tax rate on the wealthiest, so it's the middle class that's getting screwed, and when we get done destroying the middle class who's going to pay then? UBI + flat tax makes a progressive tax system. The current US budget could be revenue neutral with $600 per month + 31% flat tax, and still give the rich as much in "incentive programs" as the population is getting in UBI.