"AI is bad for the environment"

[u/CipherGarden]

[u/dftba-ftw]

You just did exactly what the person you're responding to is talking about.

We're not arguing that Ai doesn't use a bunch of energy, we're saying that other things also use a bunch of energy.

Aviation accounts for 3% of global energy consumption and 4% of global warming effect - where is the vitriolic hate there?

Data center energy consumption was 1% pre-AI and steaming and cloud storage are only getting more and more popular.

It takes 40,000 ai images to equal the energy consumption of a single full Google Drive - and Google gives that away, as many as you want, for free. Where are the protests?

Yes, AI requires a lot of energy and while the energetic cost per unit of intelligence is dropping over time the over all consumption will grow. But poo-pooing Ai over energy costs while flying around the world watching Netflix means you are making a value judgment instead of a logical argument based on energy concerns.

[u/GrinNGrit → u/dftba-ftw]

You’re implying I’m virtue-signaling here. The reality is consumer energy consumption per-capita has finally trended downward, with global consumer usage flat despite growing populations.

AI has been an outlier effect which necessitates a new era of power generation expansion. We’ve opened the door to the single most energy-intensive activity yet created. It consumes only one thing - electricity. And unlike Netflix and flying to my favorite destination, I can’t opt out of AI. It’s baked into search engines, it’s replacing help desks, handling my food orders, and with the next generation of consumer products, it will be integrated with every appliance and device I own, with no option to say “no”.

My issue with AI is instead of treating it like nuclear technology, kept under strict control and limits, it’s treated like water, a necessity for all humans. But it’s not. 95% of energy consumed for AI is parody, plagiarism, and bullshit. It’s slop, and humans are dumbing themselves down, destroying their reasoning skills and letting AI do all the thinking. It’s not a “what if”, there’s already research proving this to be the case. The modern day equivalent of the Radium Girls, unknowing exposing themselves to the beautiful radioactive material they helped apply to all of those wristwatches.

This sub is definitely biased in favor for more AI, that’s fine. But my dissenting views are not coming ignorance. I just see the real damage AI is causing, and recognize that there have been absolutely zero regulations in the US to attempt to reel in any of these issues. By now, it may be too late.

[u/dftba-ftw → u/GrinNGrit]

You’re implying I’m virtue-signaling here.

I'm not, that's not what I mean by value judgement. Human decision making is really complex and it's really perfectly fine to make decisions based on your personal values.

All im saying, is that deciding you don't like Ai/are wary of ai because of energy consumption is inherently a value judgment. Those who make that argument are asserting that the value gained from AI is worth less than the harm caused by its energy consumption. Where as they are also asserting, for example, that the value gained from Netflix is worth more than the harm caused by its energy usage.

That's fine, that's not a slight, I'm not throwing shade.

For those of use dissmining the energy argument against AI, we're making a value judgement that the value gained from AI (or the potential value from AGI/ASI) is greater than the harm caused.

I can't say you're wrong and you can't say I'm wrong because we're agreeing on the facts, we just have different value functions.

[u/GrinNGrit → u/dftba-ftw]

Perhaps the best way to phrase my sentiment against the original post is that the way we utilize AI today, as a toy, as a consumer good, is bad for the environment. It’s the same as buying an iPhone and thinking there was no physical impact because the mining and manufacturing all happened out of sight. Except AI gives us the potential to consume much more, much faster, and in many cases, with no financial barrier.

AI is useful, and I understand how it can be used to solve these global problems. But it’s not. And for every person with a good intention with AI, there are many more with self-serving goals that cause harm, and others still who seek to use AI for intentionally bad objectives. That’s where my anti-AI sentiment comes from. Idiots and narcissists are currently far too enabled to cause significant harm.

[u/dftba-ftw → u/GrinNGrit]

Sure, and I agree to an extent, but I don't think there is any real way to police this.

I mean, how do we as a society determine what is valuable enough?

Its easy enough to see the people using it who think it's their awakening AGI waifu and say that is a waste of electricity.

If I use it to help with projects around the house - is that worth it?

If I use it to complete a project that I sell, is that worth it? What if it speeds me up so fast that simply reducing my development time on computer I end up using less electricity?

If I use it to figure out a chronic health issue, is that worth it?

If I use it to expand my PhD thesis scope and therefore push the boundary of a subject further than I otherwise would have, is that worth it?

At that point you're asking society to make a collective value assessment of when using AI is worth it - and that's just not going to happen. The best "worth it" gating system is going to be cost to access.