Coding landed on the right solution pretty early with this: Use whatever tools you want, but you’re responsible for what you publish.
This is not the case, there is an abundance of evidence to the contrary.
That is an approach being taken by some, but it’s not coding specific and it’s certainly not a standard, by any means.
Also people have never cared about the environment.
Some people do, just not the ones who stand to benefit from the decline normally, and those just happen to be the ones who can meaningfully make a difference.
Running an existing model isn’t any worse for the environment than gaming,
If you ignore the difference in scale and significantly different usage profile, sure?
How many gamers do you think you’d need to equate to a 24/7 data centre serving models, or even a mostly local setup running multiple GPU’s at max capacity for a full work day, every day ?
and training them produces tools that can be useful as a coding package, like numpy for language.
Being subjectively useful isn’t a good argument against environmental impact, unless you have a good example of something so useful it could practically be compared to the impact.
Yeah, everything is bad for the environment,
Not technically true, but in modern society i kind of agree in general.
but I didn’t see this level of outrage about bitcoin and people still like to pretend plastics recycling works.
The outrage is different because the surface area is different, crypto was semi-niche and didn’t have the possibility to actively replace people.
More people are potentially impacted by this so you see more complaints (of varying levels of subjective legitimacy and accuracy).
Plastic recycling is an entirely different conversation but it’s always been a scam for the most part, people believe because that’s what they are told, repeatedly, and they have no reason to think otherwise unless they look in to it.
People aren’t actually mad at AI as a tool. People are mad about shabby work and increased spam. People are mad at losing their job when some jackass CEO fires them and being stung along when they apply for a new job.
Absolutely agree.
If we were brutally honest and insisted that AI has had little substantive effect on the economy (which is what the data actually says)
Citation? because to my (admittedly amateur) knowledge a large proportion of the US stock market is tied up in shenanigans to do with LLM’s and the related resources.
Unless you mean the effect of the outputs that have come from LLM’s, in which case , sure, it’s probably not much of an impact overall.
CEOs and politicians would be forced to take responsibility and be held to account for their stupid decisions.
That has such a vanishingly small likelihood of happening, there is a huge fucking list of significantly worse shit from recent history and actively ongoing that is being ignored because money.
I highly doubt that “CEO makes line go up for quarter by axing 3/4 of still-needed staff, because they have no idea what they are doing” is getting anyone more than a kickback slap on the wrist.
We should definitely still be trying though, I’m just managing my expectations.
Best I can tell, this anti-AI crap is a distraction and excuse not to talk about workers rights, education, and good democratic systems.
“anti-AI crap” is a broad category, but i agree there is a lot of “Look over here” going on.
That’s not LLM specific though , it’s the norm at this point.
Honestly, I’m glad you care about the environment enough to criticize me for mitigating the issue. You’re right for a lot of points AI is probably a little closer to running a microwave than gaming for pre-existing models, but either is far better than leaving your car idling for the same time. My point was more that people don’t seem to have good a sense of the scale of the effect. You’re also right that a lot of people are rushing to use more AI in stupid pointless wasteful ways that will cause mass waste for no good reason, but again perspective: the vast majority of people don’t agree with the fuckcars communities and there’s really no denying that the mass adoption of personal vehicles has been, is, and will continue to be far worse than AI. Unless, perhaps, if some moron hooks an AI up to nukes – but in that case I’d still be pissed at the moron. I agree that AI sucks for the environment, and it’s fair to dislike me mitigating it. My point is more about the consistency of the criticism compared to other things in the discussion of what is worth what.
This is not the case, there is an abundance of evidence to the contrary.
That is an approach being taken by some, but it’s not coding specific and it’s certainly not a standard, by any means.
Some people do, just not the ones who stand to benefit from the decline normally, and those just happen to be the ones who can meaningfully make a difference.
If you ignore the difference in scale and significantly different usage profile, sure?
How many gamers do you think you’d need to equate to a 24/7 data centre serving models, or even a mostly local setup running multiple GPU’s at max capacity for a full work day, every day ?
Being subjectively useful isn’t a good argument against environmental impact, unless you have a good example of something so useful it could practically be compared to the impact.
Not technically true, but in modern society i kind of agree in general.
The outrage is different because the surface area is different, crypto was semi-niche and didn’t have the possibility to actively replace people.
More people are potentially impacted by this so you see more complaints (of varying levels of subjective legitimacy and accuracy).
Plastic recycling is an entirely different conversation but it’s always been a scam for the most part, people believe because that’s what they are told, repeatedly, and they have no reason to think otherwise unless they look in to it.
Absolutely agree.
Citation? because to my (admittedly amateur) knowledge a large proportion of the US stock market is tied up in shenanigans to do with LLM’s and the related resources.
Unless you mean the effect of the outputs that have come from LLM’s, in which case , sure, it’s probably not much of an impact overall.
That has such a vanishingly small likelihood of happening, there is a huge fucking list of significantly worse shit from recent history and actively ongoing that is being ignored because money.
I highly doubt that “CEO makes line go up for quarter by axing 3/4 of still-needed staff, because they have no idea what they are doing” is getting anyone more than a kickback slap on the wrist.
We should definitely still be trying though, I’m just managing my expectations.
“anti-AI crap” is a broad category, but i agree there is a lot of “Look over here” going on.
That’s not LLM specific though , it’s the norm at this point.
Honestly, I’m glad you care about the environment enough to criticize me for mitigating the issue. You’re right for a lot of points AI is probably a little closer to running a microwave than gaming for pre-existing models, but either is far better than leaving your car idling for the same time. My point was more that people don’t seem to have good a sense of the scale of the effect. You’re also right that a lot of people are rushing to use more AI in stupid pointless wasteful ways that will cause mass waste for no good reason, but again perspective: the vast majority of people don’t agree with the fuckcars communities and there’s really no denying that the mass adoption of personal vehicles has been, is, and will continue to be far worse than AI. Unless, perhaps, if some moron hooks an AI up to nukes – but in that case I’d still be pissed at the moron. I agree that AI sucks for the environment, and it’s fair to dislike me mitigating it. My point is more about the consistency of the criticism compared to other things in the discussion of what is worth what.