You’re absolutely right that the environmental impact depends on the source of the energy, and less obviously, by the displaced demand that now has to seek energy from less clean sources. Ideally we should have lots of clean energy, but unfortunately we often don’t, and even when AI uses clean sources, they’re often just forcing preexisting load elsewhere. If we can start investing in power infrastructure projects at the national (or state/province level) then maybe it wouldn’t be so bad, but it never happens at a scale that we need.
I think the argument isn’t the environmental impact alone, it’s the judgement about the net benefit of both the environmental impact and the product produced. I think the statement is “we spent all this power, and for what? Some cats with tits and an absolutely destroyed labour market. Not worth the cost” Especially because it’s a cost that the users of AI are forcing everyone to pay. Privatize profits, socialize losses, and all that.
I think a different way to look at what you’ve brought up in the second paragraph is that people are angry and talking about the power usage because the dislike AI, not the other way around. It doesn’t really make sense for people to be angry about the power usage of AI if the power usage had no environmental impact.
I agree, although I think that phrasing it as “dislike” does a disservice to the legitimate grievances.
To give it a more nuanced spin, it’s not so much about disliking one because of the other, it’s about taking everything together. The power usage is just one more grievance, exacerbating opinions on AI.
I think the reason that power usage comes up a lot is because it’s easy to discuss, while talking about it through the lens of economics or communal good can easily get derailed.
You’re absolutely right that the environmental impact depends on the source of the energy, and less obviously, by the displaced demand that now has to seek energy from less clean sources. Ideally we should have lots of clean energy, but unfortunately we often don’t, and even when AI uses clean sources, they’re often just forcing preexisting load elsewhere. If we can start investing in power infrastructure projects at the national (or state/province level) then maybe it wouldn’t be so bad, but it never happens at a scale that we need.
I think the argument isn’t the environmental impact alone, it’s the judgement about the net benefit of both the environmental impact and the product produced. I think the statement is “we spent all this power, and for what? Some cats with tits and an absolutely destroyed labour market. Not worth the cost”
Especially because it’s a cost that the users of AI are forcing everyone to pay. Privatize profits, socialize losses, and all that.
I think a different way to look at what you’ve brought up in the second paragraph is that people are angry and talking about the power usage because the dislike AI, not the other way around. It doesn’t really make sense for people to be angry about the power usage of AI if the power usage had no environmental impact.
I agree, although I think that phrasing it as “dislike” does a disservice to the legitimate grievances.
To give it a more nuanced spin, it’s not so much about disliking one because of the other, it’s about taking everything together. The power usage is just one more grievance, exacerbating opinions on AI.
I think the reason that power usage comes up a lot is because it’s easy to discuss, while talking about it through the lens of economics or communal good can easily get derailed.
fair enough, my habit is to go for relatively neutral words such as “dislike” to encapsulate a broader spectrum of people.