Sadness is my overriding feeling around this, too. I have a couple of questions: why is there still so little discussion about the catastrophic environmental impact of this tech? It seems to be the number one problem. And secondly, why are you against degrowth as an approach? Is it just that you think it’s unrealistic? Because we may not…
Sadness is my overriding feeling around this, too. I have a couple of questions: why is there still so little discussion about the catastrophic environmental impact of this tech? It seems to be the number one problem. And secondly, why are you against degrowth as an approach? Is it just that you think it’s unrealistic? Because we may not have a choice, if climate collapse has anything to do with it.
I think rather than degrowing the economy we can work forward to transform all sources of energy into clean renewable energy, e.g. solar and wind, etc. (perhaps using nuclear as a transition point). The thing about AI and climate change is that AI really affects very little compared to other things that have existed for decades and decades. Why focus on the tiny thing? Because it's the new thing. All efforts to fight the climate are better spent somewhere else (e.g. better energy sources, less fossil fuel usage, less cars more sustainable transport methods, less meat more veggies, etc). I don't deny AI is not helpful (and won't defend it on the grounds that it might be helpful down the line, e.g. by discovering better methods to eliminate CO2 etc.) but it's also not the most pressing of our problems in this regard.
I agree that we have to concentrate on other areas too, particularly the ones you mention, and we desperately needed to do this without the addition of this tech… but
If our governments are backing down from decarbonisation plans as a direct response to the surge in demand even in this early phase, that has to be a red flag, no? Are the reports that ‘generating an image or two evaporates a bottle of water, or is the equivalent of charging your phone from empty’, false?
If cloud computing accounts for more emissions than the global commercial aviation industry, it’s not a tiny thing if the addition of Gen AI to the system is taken into consideration. At least from my understanding. Plus given the tech needs the resources so badly, and we know that the resources are going to be increasingly rare as the climate continues to collapse, isn’t it foolish to transition our systems and economies to be reliant on it?
I keep coming back to the ‘why?’ - I still don’t understand why we need this. People say ‘it’s just a tool’, but what demand does it fulfill? The same demand the creative industries already fulfill? If it doesn’t offer something genuinely useful, I’d argue it’s not by definition a tool. At least, not for the majority of people. To me this makes the environmental impact that much more grotesque.
I wholeheartedly agree your last question needs to be askedm that's the last section of the essay. A question we unfortunately rarely ask. But I'd go beyond climate change on why this is important. Gen AI adds little to the carbon footprint of cloud computing, which is mostly centered on other stuff. But I agree, we gotta keep an eye on that (major companies are restarting nuclear plants to power datacenters, which is better than burning fossil fuels)
Sadness is my overriding feeling around this, too. I have a couple of questions: why is there still so little discussion about the catastrophic environmental impact of this tech? It seems to be the number one problem. And secondly, why are you against degrowth as an approach? Is it just that you think it’s unrealistic? Because we may not have a choice, if climate collapse has anything to do with it.
I think rather than degrowing the economy we can work forward to transform all sources of energy into clean renewable energy, e.g. solar and wind, etc. (perhaps using nuclear as a transition point). The thing about AI and climate change is that AI really affects very little compared to other things that have existed for decades and decades. Why focus on the tiny thing? Because it's the new thing. All efforts to fight the climate are better spent somewhere else (e.g. better energy sources, less fossil fuel usage, less cars more sustainable transport methods, less meat more veggies, etc). I don't deny AI is not helpful (and won't defend it on the grounds that it might be helpful down the line, e.g. by discovering better methods to eliminate CO2 etc.) but it's also not the most pressing of our problems in this regard.
I agree that we have to concentrate on other areas too, particularly the ones you mention, and we desperately needed to do this without the addition of this tech… but
https://www.ft.com/content/533a031a-29d0-434a-b6e0-daadf2ff3add
If our governments are backing down from decarbonisation plans as a direct response to the surge in demand even in this early phase, that has to be a red flag, no? Are the reports that ‘generating an image or two evaporates a bottle of water, or is the equivalent of charging your phone from empty’, false?
If cloud computing accounts for more emissions than the global commercial aviation industry, it’s not a tiny thing if the addition of Gen AI to the system is taken into consideration. At least from my understanding. Plus given the tech needs the resources so badly, and we know that the resources are going to be increasingly rare as the climate continues to collapse, isn’t it foolish to transition our systems and economies to be reliant on it?
I keep coming back to the ‘why?’ - I still don’t understand why we need this. People say ‘it’s just a tool’, but what demand does it fulfill? The same demand the creative industries already fulfill? If it doesn’t offer something genuinely useful, I’d argue it’s not by definition a tool. At least, not for the majority of people. To me this makes the environmental impact that much more grotesque.
I wholeheartedly agree your last question needs to be askedm that's the last section of the essay. A question we unfortunately rarely ask. But I'd go beyond climate change on why this is important. Gen AI adds little to the carbon footprint of cloud computing, which is mostly centered on other stuff. But I agree, we gotta keep an eye on that (major companies are restarting nuclear plants to power datacenters, which is better than burning fossil fuels)