HN reacts to a New Yorker piece on the “obscene energy demands of AI” with exactly the same arguments coiners use when confronted with the energy cost of blockchain - the product is valuable in of itself, demands for more energy will spur investment in energy generation, and what about the energy costs of painting oil on canvas, hmmmmmm???

Maybe it’s just my newness antennae needing calibrating, but I do feel the extreme energy requirements for what’s arguably just a frivolous toy is gonna cause AI boosters big problems, especially as energy demands ramp up in the US in the warmer months. Expect the narrative to adjust to counter it.

  • 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Because I’m not arguing with OP, I’m largely agreeing with them. Generating silly images and doing school kids homework is not the promised land of AI the corporate overlords keep promising. But that’s not to suggest the field in general has zero uses. Crypto and AI are apples and oranges and while I’m not exactly sure what you mean by the arguments being the same, it would be possible for the same argument to be true for AI and not true for crypto, because AI has much more obvious use cases to benefit the common good.

    • David Gerard@awful.systemsM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      “AI” is a marketing term for various at best slightly related technologies. If you mean LLMs or whatever, you’d need to be specific else you’re not even defining the goalposts before setting them up with wheels.