- cross-posted to:
- technology@hexbear.net
- fuck_ai@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@hexbear.net
- fuck_ai@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
On the plus side, the industry is rapidly moving towards locally-run AI models specifically because they don’t want to purchase and run fleets of these absurd things or any other expensive hardware.
The tragic irony of the kind of misinformed article this is linking is that the server farms that would be running this stuff are fairly efficient. The water is reused and recycled, the heat is often used for other applications. Because wasting fewer resources is cheaper than wasting more resources.
But all those locally-run models on laptop CPUs and desktop GPUs? That’s grid power being turned into heat and vented into a home (probably with air conditioning on).
The weird AI panic, driven by an attempt to repurpose the popular anti-crypto arguments whether they matched the new challenges or not, is going to PR this tech into wasting way more energy than it would otherwise by distributing it over billions of computer devices paid by individual users. And nobody is going to notice or care.
I do hate our media landscape sometimes.
But efficiency is not the only consideration, privacy and self reliance are important facets as well. Your argument about efficiënt computing is 100% valid but there is a lot more to it.
Oh, absolutely. There are plenty of good reasons to run any application locally, and a generative ML model is just another application. Some will make more sense running from server, some from client. That’s not the issue.
My frustration is with the fact that a knee-jerk reaction took all the 100% valid concerns about wasteful power consumption on crypto and copy-pasted them to AI because they had so much fun dunking on cryptobros they didn’t have time for nuance. So instead of solving the problem they added incentive for the tech companies owning this stuff to pass the hardware and power cost to the consumer (which they were always going to do) and minimize the perception of “costly water-chugging power-hungry server farms”.
It’s very dumb. The entire conversation around this has been so dumb from every angle, from the idiot techbros announcing the singularity to the straight-faced arguments that machine learning models are copy-pasting things they find on the Internet to the hyperbolic figures on potential energy and water cost. Every single valid concern or morsel of opportunity has been blown way out of reasonable proportion.
It’s a model of how our entire way of interacting with each other and with the world has changed online and I hate it with my entire self.
Thanks for the perspective. I despise the way the generative models destroy income for entry level artists, the unhealthy amount it is used to avoid learning and homework in schools, and how none of the productivity gains will be shared with the working class. So my view around it is incredibly biased and when I hear any argument that puts AI into bad light I accept it without enough critical thinking.
From what I learned over the years: AI isn’t likely to destroy income for entry-level artists. They destroy the quagmires those artists got stuck in. The artists this will replace first and foremost are those creating elevator music, unassuming PowerPoint presentation backgrounds, Stock photos of coffee mugs. All those things where you really don’t need anything specific and don’t really want to think about anything.
Now look how much is being paid for those artworks by the customers on Shutterstock and the like. Almost nothing. Now imagine what Shutterstock pays their artists. Fuck all is what. Artists might get a shred of credit here and there, a few pennies, and that’s that. The market AI is “disrupting” as they say, is a self-exploitative freelancing hellhole. Most of those artists cannot live off their work, and to be frank: Their work isn’t worth enough to most people to pay them the money they’d need to live.
Yet, while they chase the carrot dangling in front of them, dreaming of fame and collecting enough notoriety through that work to one day do their real art, instead of interchangeable throwaway-stuff made to fit into any situation at once, Corporations continue to bleed them dry, not allowing any progress for them whatsoever. Or do you know who made the last image of a coffee mug you saw in some advert?
The artists who manage to make a living (digital and analog) are those who manage to cultivate a following. Be that through Patreon, art exhibitions, whatever. Those artists will continue to make a living because people want them to do exactly what they do, not an imitation of it. They will continue to get commissioned because ´people want their specific style and ideas.
So in reality, it doesn’t really destroy artists, it replaces one corpo-hellhole (freelancing artist) with another (freelancing AI trainer/prompter/etc)
I will keep that perspective in mind, thank you. I am very held back by the amount of resistance and pushback by myself against ai developments, and it is very hard to warm up to something being shoved down by these huge malicious corporations and not be worried about how they will use it against us.
It sounds like one of the most impressive things in recent history and something that would fill me with joy and excitement but we’re in such a hostile environment that I am missing out on all that. I haven’t even managed to get myself to warm up to at least trying one out.
It’s really not that exciting. Quite the opposite. The rush for AI in everything is absolutely bonkers, since those LLMs are just stupid as fuck and not suited for any sort of productive performance they get hyped up to achieve.
The weird AI panic, driven by an attempt to repurpose the popular anti-crypto arguments whether they matched the new challenges or not, is going to PR this tech into wasting way more energy than it would otherwise by distributing it over billions of computer devices paid by individual users. And nobody is going to notice or care.
I think the idea was that these things are bad idea locally or otherwise, if you don’t control them.
No it wasn’t. Here’s how I know: all the valid concerns that came about how additional regulation would disproportionately stifle open source alternatives were immediately ignored by the vocal online critics (and the corporate techbros overhyping sci-fi apocalypses). And then when open alternatives appeared anyway nobody on the critical side considered them appropriate or even a lesser evil. The narrative didn’t move one bit.
Because it wasn’t about openness or closeness, it was a tribal fight, like all the tribal fights we keep having, stoked by greed on one end and viral outrage on the other. It’s excruciating to watch.
I wouldn’t say bad, but the generative ai and llm are definitely underbaked and shoving everything under the sun into them is going to create garbage in, garbage out. And using it for customer support where it will inevitably offer either bad advice or open you up to lawsuits seems shortsighted to say the least.
They were calling the rest machine learning(ML) a couple years ago. There are valid uses for ML though. Image/video upscaling and image search are a couple examples.
Modern media scares me more than AI
Honestly, a lot of the effects people attribute to “AI” as understood by this polemic are ongoing and got ignited by algorithmic searches first and then supercharged by social media. If anything, there are some ways in which the moral AI panic is actually triggering regulation that should have existed for ages.
Regulation is only going to prevent regular people from benefiting from AI while keeping it as a tool for the upper crust to continue to benefit. Artists are a Trojan horse on this.
We’re thinking about different “regulation”, and that’s another place where extreme opinions have nuked the ground into glass.
Absolutely yeah, techbros are playing up the risks because they hope regulators looking for a cheap win will suddenly increase the cost for competitors, lock out open alternatives and grandfather them in as the only valid stewards of this supposedly apocalyptic technology. We probably shouldn’t allow that.
But “maybe don’t make an app that makes porn out of social media pictures of your underage ex girlfriend at the touch of a button” is probably reasonable, AI or no AI.
Software uses need some regulation like everything else does. Doesn’t mean we need to sell the regulation to disingenuous corporations.
We already have laws that protect people when porn is made of them without consent. AI should be a tool that’s as free and open to be used as possible and built upon. Regulation is only going to turn it into a tool for the haves and restrict the have not’s. Of course you’re going to see justifiable reasons just like protecting children made sense during the satanic panics. Abuse happens in daycares across the countries. Satanists do exist. Pen pineapple apple pen.
Its not like you control these things by making arguments that make no sense. They’re structured to ensure you agree with them especially during the early phase roll out otherwise it would just become something that again never pans out the way we fear. Media is there to generate the fear and arguments to convince us to hobble ourselves.
No, that’s not true at all. That’s the exact same argument that the fearmongers are using to claim that traditional copyright already covers the use cases of media as AI training materials and so training is copying.
It’s not. We have to acknowledge that there is some novel element to these, and novel elements may require novel frameworks. I think IP and copyright are broken anyway, but if the thing that makes us rethink them is the idea that machines can learn from a piece of media without storing a copy and spit out a similar output… well, we may need to look at that.
And if there is a significant change in how easily accessible, realistic or widespread certain abusive practices are we may need some adjustments there.
But that’s not the same as saying that AI is going to get us to Terminator within five years and so Sam Altman is the only savior that can keep the grail of knowledge away from bad actors. Regulation should be effective and enable people to compete in the novel areas where there is opportunity.
Both of those things can be true at the same time. I promise you don’t need to take the maximalist approach. You don’t even need to take sides at all. That’s the frustrating part of this whole thing.
If I make a gas engine with 100% heat efficiency but only run it in my backyard, do the greenhouse gases not count because it’s so efficient? Of course they do. The high efficiency of a data center is great, but that’s not what the article laments. The problem it’s calling out is the absurdly wasteful nature of why these farms will flourish: to power excessively animated programs to feign intelligence, vainly wasting power for what a simple program was already addressing.
It’s the same story with lighting. LEDs seemed like a savior for energy consumption because they were so efficient. Sure they save energy overall (for now), but it prompted people to multiply the number of lights and total output by an order of magnitude simply because it’s so cheap. This stems a secondary issue of further increasing light pollution and intrusion.
Greater efficiency doesn’t make things right if it comes with an increase in use.
For one thing, it’s absolutely not true that what these apps provide is the same as what we had. That’s another place where the AI grifters and the AI fearmongers are both lying. This is not a 1:1 replacement for older tech. Not on search, where LLM queries are less reliable at finding facts and being accurate but better at matching fuzzy searches without specific parameters. Not with image generation, obviously. Not with tools like upscaling, frame interpolation and so on.
For another, some of the numbers being thrown around are not realistic or factual, are not presented in context or are part of a power increase trend that was already ongoing with earlier applications. The average high end desktop PC used to run on 250W in the 90s, 500W in the 2000s. Mine now runs at 1000W. Playing a videogame used to burn as much power as a couple of lightbulbs, now it’s the equivalent of turning on your microwave oven.
The argument that we are burning more power because we’re using more compute for entertainment purposes is not factually incorrect, but it’s both hyperbolic (some of the cost estimates being shared virally are deliberate overestimates taken out of context) and not inconsistent with how we use other computer features and have used other computer features for ages.
The only reason you’re so mad about me wasting some energy asking an AI to generate a cute picture but not at me using an AI to generate frames for my videogame is that one of those is a viral panic that maps nicely into the viral panic about crypto people already had and the other is a frog that has been slow burning for three decades so people don’t have a reason to have an opinion about it.
deleted by creator
Nah, even that won’t be. Because most of this workload is going to run on laptops and tablets and phones and it’s going to run at lower qualities where the power cost per task is very manageable on hardware accelerated devices that will do it more efficiently.
The heavy load is going to stay on farms because nobody is going to wait half an hour and waste 20% of their battery making a picture of a cute panda eating a sandwich. They’ll run heavily quantized language models as interfaces to basic apps and search engines and it’ll do basic upscaling for video and other familiar tasks like that.
I’m not trying to be obtusely equidistant, it’s just that software developers are neither wizards that will bring about the next industrial revolution because nobody else is smart enough… nor complete morons that can’t balance the load of a task across a server and a client.
But it’s true that they’ll push as much of that compute and energy cost onto the user as possible, as a marketing ploy to sell new devices, if nothing else. And it’s true that on the aggregate that will make the tasks less efficient and waste more heat and energy.
Also, I’m not sure how downvoted I am. Interoperable social networks are a great idea in concept, but see above about software developers. I assume the up/downvote comes from rolling a d20 and adding it to whatever the local votes are.
Efficiency at the consumer level is poor, but industry uses more total energy than consumers.
Yeeeeah, you’re gonna have to break down that math for me.
Because if an output takes some amount of processing to generate and your energy cost per unit of compute is higher we’re either missing something in that equation or we’re breaking the laws of thermodynamics.
If the argument is that the industry uses more total energy because they keep the training in-house or because they do more of the compute at this point in time, that doesn’t change things much, does it? The more of those tasks that get offloaded to the end user the more the balance will shift for generating outputs. As for training, that’s a fixed cost. Technically the more you use a model the more the cost spreads out per query, and it’s not like distributing the training load itself among user-level hardware would make its energy cost go down.
The reality of it is that the entire thing was more than a bit demagogic. People are mad at the energy cost of chatbot search and image generation, but not at the same cost of image generation for videogame upscaling or frame interpolation, even if they’re using the same methods and hardware. Like I said earlier, it’s all carryover from the crypto outrage more than it is anything else.
Yeah, I think the author misses the point in regard to power consumption. Companies will not buy loads of these and use them in addition to existing hardware. They will buy these to get rid of current hardware. It’s not clear (yet) if that will increase, decrease or not affect power consumption.
The lack of last-last gen hardware on the used market suggests this isn’t true. Even if it were available, the buyers will run it and the overall energy consumption will still increase. It’s not like old hardware disappears after it’s replaced with newer models.
Even if companies were replacing existing hardware, the existing hardware uses less power. So whether it is additional hardware or not, there will be an increase in energy demand, which is bad for climate change.
I have personally worked on a project where we replaced several older nodes in datacenters with only one modern one. That used more power than two older nodes combined, but since we were shutting down 15-20, we saved a lot of power. Not every replacement is 1:1, most aren’t.
deleted by creator
Every cloud has a silver lining it seems (heheh)
You can still upload the results to the cloud
deleted by creator
This article is one of the most down-to-earth, realistic observations on technology I’ve ever read. Utterly striking as well.
Go Read This Article.
Agreed, stop scrolling the comments and go read it random reader.
I used to get so excited by tech advances but now I’ve gotten to the point where its still cool and a fascinating application of science… but this stuff is legitimately existential. The author raises great points around it.
This ironically(?) made me go read it. Normally I don’t.
Thank you.
Come on. Stop reading the comments. Go check the article.
Removed by mod
Eh it’s not that great.
One million Blackwell GPUs would suck down an astonishing 1.875 gigawatts of power. For context, a typical nuclear power plant only produces 1 gigawatt of power.
Fossil fuel-burning plants, whether that’s natural gas, coal, or oil, produce even less. There’s no way to ramp up nuclear capacity in the time it will take to supply these millions of chips, so much, if not all, of that extra power demand is going to come from carbon-emitting sources.
If you ignore the two fastest growing methods of power generation, which coincidentally are also carbon free, cheap and scalable, the future does indeed look bleak. But solar and wind do exist…
The rest is purely a policy rant. Yes, if productivity increases we need some way of distributing the gains from said productivity increase fairly across the population. But jumping to the conclusion that, since this is a challenge to be solved, the increase in productivity is bad, is just stupid.
This article is a regurgitation of every tech article since the microchip. There is literally nothing new here. Tech makes labor obsolete. Tech never considers the ramifications of tech.
These things have been known since the beginning of tech.
What about the climate impact? You didn’t even address that. That’s the worst part of the AI boom, were already way in the red for climate change, and this is going to accelerate the problem rather than slowing or stopping (let alone reversing it)
That’s a very solvable problem though, AI can easily be run off green energy and a lot of the new data centers being built are utilizing it, tons are popping up in Seattle with its abundance of hydro energy. Compare that to meat production or transportation via combustion which have a much harder transition and this seems way less of an existential problem then the author makes it out to be.
Also most of the energy needed is for the training which can be done at any time, so it can be run on off peak hours. It can also absorb surpluses from solar energy in the middle of the day which can put strain on the grid.
This is all assuming it’s done right, which it may not and could exasperate the ditch were already in, but the technology itself isn’t inherently bad.
AI can easily be run off green energy
This is all assuming it’s done right
That right there is the problem. I don’t trust any tech CEO to do the right thing ever, because historically they haven’t. For every single technological advancement since the industrial revolution brought forth by the corporate class, masses of people have had to beat them up and shed blood to get them to stop being assholes for a beat and abuse and murder people a little less.
It doesn’t matter if AI is run on green energy as long as other things are still running on fossil fuels. There is a limit to how fast renewables energy sources are built and if the power consumption of AI eats away all of that growth, then the amount of fossil energy doesn’t change.
All increases in energy consumption are not green because they force something else to run on fossil energy for longer.
We need to deploy solar and wind at a breakneck pace to replace the fossil fuel usage we already have. Why compound that with a whole new source?
The tech that exists so far haven’t had the potential to replace every job on earth, that’s the real difference for me.
haven’t had the potential to replace every job on earth, that’s the real difference for me.
This really doesn’t either tbh. But that’s certainly what they’re selling.
How do you know what the limits of this technology is? How do you know that they couldn’t be able to reach that point in 5-10-20-50-100-1000 years?
Unless you’re thinking of the current iteration of the technology and not its future evolutions.
Its future iterations that are definitely not this?
Sure, I don’t know.
I’d wager we’ll probably reach climate collapse / political crises that throw us off course before a “Westworld-esque” thing is ever possible.
People don’t seem to realize that these tech leaders are all just weaponizing your imagination against you (a.k.a. using a sales technique). GPUs and LLMs aren’t skynet no matter how much people want to project that onto them.
Nvidia cares maybe even less about the outcome than I do, they’ll sell you all the pickaxe you want to buy in the AI gold rush.
Boiling the oceans for deepfake porn, scamcoins and worse web search.
Believe it or not, peak humanity.
It’s all downhill from hereI think we passed the peak a few years ago. But yeah, peak from here on out.
The Matrix was such a nice movie. In 2000 they already had Linux, PlayStation, ICQ, filesharing, old Star Wars (with a good chunk of the classical EU) and even the Phantom Menace (haters gonna hate), and the first 3 Harry Potter books. And WarCraft II, and X-Wing Alliance, and I’m lazy to go on with this
I think the worst part of Huang’s keynote wasn’t that none of this mattered, it’s that I don’t think anyone in Huang’s position is really thinking about any of this at all. I hope they’re not, which at least means it’s possible they can be convinced to change course. The alternative is that they do not care, which is a far darker problem for the world.
well yeah… they just don’t care, after all the climate crisis is somebody else’s problem… and what really matters is that the line goes up next quarter, mankind’s future be damned
Innovation is a scam, it breeds endless bullshit we keep buying and talking about like 10 year olds with their latest gimmick.
Look, they replaced this button with A TOUCHSCREEN!
Look! This artficial face has PORES NOW!
LOOK! This coffee machine costs 2000$ now and uses PROPRIATARY SUPEREXPENSIVE CAPSULES!!
We need progress, which is harder to do because it takes a paradigm shift on an Individual and social level. It’s much less gadgety.Tech is neither good nor bad, but control of tech is a major issue.
The existing capitalist control of tech is bad.
Agreed! And that’s where the problem lies. It’s not tech so much as our existing power structures.
You’re not wrong. We’ve reached a point, technologically, where there is little-to-no true innovation left… and what I mean by that is that everything is now built on incredible amounts of work by others who came before. “Standing on the shoulders of giants”, as it were. And yet we have a corrupt “patent” system that is exclusively used to steal the work of those giants while at the same time depriving all of humanity of true progress. And why? So that a handful of very rich people can get even more rich.
Exactly, innovations no longer help to satisfy real basic needs, they are used to create new, artificial needs. Always new toys that make us feel like we’re making progress.
That’s not true, but to have planned “innovation” bring profit you need to impede real progress. Cause real progress disrupts such plans.
Innovatin is good if it results in clean water, meds, housing, safe food and goods and services.
It’s bad if it means: the most profit for useless shit that people only buy because advertisment made them believe they need it.
Capitalism is a tool. Please let’s grow a pair and stop letting it decide how it will be used. It’s like pulling the trigger on an ak47 without holding it tight. Do we expect the weapon to know where to shot?
Capitalism is a tool that wants to maximize its profits. Unfortunately it discovered that changing the politics and laws is an easy way to do that, even if it’s bad for the people.
Capitalism is per definition not bound to ethics or moral. We need to set rules, even if big corporations made us to believe we shouldn’t.
We need to set rules, even if big corporations made us to believe we shouldn’t.
That’s a strawman, possibly aimed at libertarians. Like everyone else, corps want to set rules which benefit them.
I remember hearing this argument before…about the Internet. Glad that fad went away.
As it has always been, these technologies are being used to push us forward by teams of underpaid unnamed researchers with no interest in profit. Meanwhile you focus on the scammers and capitalists and unload your wallets to them, all while complaining about the lack of progress as measured by the products you see in advertisements.
Luckily, when you get that cancer diagnosis or your child is born with some rare disease, that progress will attend to your needs despite your ignorance if it.
Exactly. OP is mad at alienation, not at progress. In a different, less stupid world these labor saving devices would actually be great, leading to a better quality of life for everyone, and getting a really awesome coffee maker. But the people making the decisions aren’t the consumers or the researchers.
You misunderstood me. I have nothing against progress. Medical progress is great! But what is often sold to us as innovation is not progress but just more nonsense that only pretends to get us further.
Fun fact the first Mr coffee cost 300 dollars in 1971, which would be more than 2000 dollars today
We need progress, which is harder to do because it takes a paradigm shift on an Individual and social level.
Sometimes it just takes a marginal improvement to the quality of the engineering. But these “what if manual labor but fascade of robots!” gimmicks aren’t improvements in engineering. They’re an effort to cut corners on quality in pursuit of a higher profit margin.
Even setting aside you believe these aren’t just a line up of mechanical turks controlled from a sweetshop in the Philippines, their work product isn’t anything approaching good. Its just cheap.
Improvement is not a scam.
Innovation is a scam created by representing change as improvement when it isn’t.
And every time change gets replaced with innovation, it’s connected to totalitarian\fascist tendencies, because it makes easier to sell societal change which is clearly not improvement.
A person who seriously affected my life advised “Homo Ludens” by Johan Huizinga, not sure whether because of the part of it about fascism in the 30s.
A lot of the “elites” (OpenAI board, Thiel, Andreessen, etc) are on the effective-accelerationism grift now. The idea is to disregard all negative effects of pursuing technological “progress,” because techno-capitalism will solve all problems. They support burning fossil fuels as fast as possible because that will enable “progress,” which will solve climate change (through geoengineering, presumably). I’ve seen some accelerationists write that it would be ok if AI destroys humanity, because it would be the next evolution of “intelligence.” I dunno if they’ve fallen for their own grift or not, but it’s obviously a very convenient belief for them.
Effective-accelerationism was first coined by Nick Land, who appears to be some kind of fascist.
The problem with this approach is that progress here is viewed like a brick wall you build.
You don’t get progress from just burning a lot of wood in 1400s. You can get it if that wood is burnt with the goal of, I dunno, making better metal or bricks for some specific mechanism.
Same with our time, how can they expect solutions of problems to be found when they don’t understand what they are trying to find?
It’s like a cargo cult - “white people had this thing and it could fly and drop cargo, so we must reproduce its shape and we’ll be rich”, only in this case it’s even dumber - nobody has seen the things they are trying to reach anywhere outside of space opera series.
What differentiates IT from most other engineering areas is that most of people doing it solve abstract tasks in abstract environments, defined by social and market demand. They are, sadly, simply a grade below real engineers and scientists for that reason alone.
The article is really interesting and all your comments too.
For now I have a negative bias towards AI as I only see its downsides, but I can see that not everyone thinks like me and it’s great to share knowledge and understanding.
According to some people (who have never programmed and don’t know what AI can do), we will all be able to retire with a lot of money and we’ll all write poetry and become painters or make music and have fun. It’s not realistic and it won’t happen.
The only positive thing that AI can do is detect bad stuff in the human body before a surgery as long as it’s validated by a professional. I could throw everything else in the trash as it’s meant to replace humans forever.
Is nobody concerned about this:
Behind the wall, an army of robots, also powered by new Nvidia robotics processors, will assemble your food, no humans needed. We’ve already seen the introduction of these kinds of ‘labor-saving’ technologies in the form of self-checkout counters, food ordering kiosks, and other similar human-replacements in service industries, so there’s no reason to think that this trend won’t continue with AI.
not being seen as the paradise? It’s like the enterprise crew is concerned about replicators because people will lose their jobs.
This is madness, to be honest, this is what humankind ultimately should evolve into. No stupid labour for anyone. But the truth is: capitalism will take care of that, it will make sure, that not everyone is free but that a small percentage is more free and the rest is fucked.There lies the problem not in being able to make human labour obsolete.
The issue with “Human jobs will be replaced” is that society still requires humans to have a paying job to survive.
I would love a world where nobody had to do dumb labour anymore, and everyone’s needs are still met.
Yup. Realistic result of things becoming automated is that we have several decades of social strife grappling with the fact there’s too many people for the amount of human labor actually needed, until there’s enough possibly violent unrest for the powers that be to realize "oh, maybe we shouldn’t require people to have jobs that don’t exist "
Solid agree, but it’s so hard to persuade the brainwashed (let alone their capitalist masters) that the purpose of economic growth should be to generate sufficient leisure time to permit self-actualising activities for those who seek them.
The notion that everyone must earn their own living is going to be a problem soon.
I’ve been watching people try to deliver the end-to-end Food Making conveyor belt for my entire life. What I’ve consistently seen delivered are novelties, more prone to creating a giant mess in your mechanical kitchen than producing anything both efficient and edible. The closest I’ve seen are those microwaved dinners, and they’re hardly what I’d call an exciting meal.
But they are cheap to churn out. That’s what is ultimately upsetting about this overall trend. Not that we’ll be eliminating a chronic demand on human labor, but that we’ll be excising any amount of artistry or quality from the menu in order to sell people assembly line TV dinners at 100x markups in pursuit of another percentage point of GDP growth.
As more and more of the agricultural sector falls under the domain of business interests fixated on profits ahead of product, we’re going to see the volume and quality of food squeezed down into what a robot can shove through a tube.
The wealthy ruling class have siphoned off nearly all of the productivity gains since the 70s. AI won’t stop that machine. If half of us die of starvation and half the remaining half die from fighting each other for cake, they don’t care.
My blood runs cold! My dignity has just been sold. nVidia is the centerfold.
So if each GPU takes 1,800W, isn’t that the equivalent of what a handheld hair dryer consumes?
Yes, and you leave it on all day at full blast. And you have a dedicated building where there’s thousands of them doing the same.
All to take away jobs and break the internet.
It’s more than your average space heater.
And that energy doesn’t just go away after computing. You’ll have the equivalent of an average space heater of heat coming out of your computer. It’d be awesome to compute with heating energy when needed, but when you need AC it’s going to be a removed.
Yes, but they are not gaming devices. They are meant to efficiently compute things. When used for that purpose they use little energy compared to other devices doing the same thing.
Well, this is fucking bleak. Everybody, I urge you to read this article.
I did it because you urged me.
what a dumb future
Im starting to wonder if the Butlerian Jihad isn’t a good idea after all.
Elysium incoming
But without even just the cool space station to just stare at longingly…
Where my futurists now? Tell me again how a technological advancement will free humans from drudgery to engage in more free and enlightened pursuits?
THE MORE YOU BUY
THE MORE YOU SAVE
