"After the mania has calmed down, other incentives kick in,' said Jonathan Koomey, a former scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who is now an independent researcher. 'here is a huge incentive for the industry to become more efficient.' The big tech companies are working on ways to streamline their software, hardware and cooling systems to reduce electricity consumption in their data centers. They are locating computing facilities in northern countries, pulling in cold outdoor air as a coolant to reduce electricity and water use. And they are investing in alternative energy sources. If those efforts are successful, and if we’re smart about how we use A.I., it might eventually offer a lot of environmental bang for the buck."
From
"Will A.I. Ruin the Planet or Save the Planet? It’s a notorious energy hog. But artificial intelligence can also foster innovation and discovery, and it could speed the global transition to cleaner power" (NYT).
There's so little attention to this issue. If there were more, though, it would fuel suspicions about the seriousness of the climate change emergency. I see an occasional article like this, which really only says, don't worry, technology will find solutions... which is what is said by people who oppose taking strong action on climate change.
পোস্টগুলি
৬১টি মন্তব্য:
The first task of AI should be how to lower it's power consumption.
Elton Mollusk and Ronald Drumpf talked about this very topic on X earlier this month
We are at the early days of AI. It will become more efficient. Companies already working on further improving the efficiency of chips used for transformers. Anyone modestly familiar with the increase in capacity of computer chips over time knows there are engineering gains to be realized. And I am old enough to remember when writing tight efficient code was the sign of a good programmer. Things got loose when chips became so powerful, but those days may come again.
Between AI using more energy while solar and wind require more land to produce energy supply at levels anywhere near hydrocarbons; we will soon run out of land for crops and wildlife. This is considered a good thing.
Especially when AI is coding itself
You are so right. And technology can't solve it all. The Law of Unintended Consequences can never be repealed.
Once we get everybody into electric cars this will get a lot better!
Rich industrialized societies require huge amounts of affordable energy. Wind and solar will never be adequate or competitively priced sources. China takes this seriously and is building coal and nuclear power plants. We are not a serious country any more.
Democratic progress will force people into high-density population centers in order to spread the Green blight and power Anthropogenic Intelligence (AI) through development of Massively Correlated Automaton Constructs.
While there is variable climate change, there is a paucity of evidence that humans have first-order effect outside of local and regional effects, and there is no evidence of catastrophic effects.
The idea that humans can effect climate change, a natural constant, is akin to thinking we can have an effect on gravity. Which we actually do, considering that the 7 billion humans on earth are all made of mass which has gravity. We have a miniscule effect but cannot eliminate it without eliminating all humans.
I used to heat my house all winter with computers only. The furnace never clicked on. I didn't do computing in warmer months. Working math problems. A watt in the resistive furnace is the same as a watt in the computer, as far as heating goes. It might as well do something useful before it turns to heat. Same electric bill.
The climate change zealots are either luddites or completely disingenuous or control freaks. Those who believe the current technology is all the climate science we're going to have are too uneducated to realize that every era has "miraculous" inventions that completely reset the timeline for solving almost every problem facing the human race. Basically, they are scammers and dickweeds who scare governments into throwing trillions at a problem that will like be solvable with mere billions in the not too distant future, thus wasting resources and causing angst among the great unwashed. People like AOC and the rest of the chicken littles are guilty of increasing poverty across the globe and unnecessarily condemning billions of children to malnourishment and suffering though their ignorance. Execution is the only appropriate punishment for such criminals.
Sure, the chips will get more energy efficient, but then they will be multiplying in numbers anyway and you still have all the facilities built using the chips of today that aren't likely to be discarded for some time going forward. The power consumption for this purpose alone will continue to escalate for a number of years unless the promises of LLMs fails to become profitable.
I'm a scientist. There is no climate emergency.
Oh, very funny! You called Trump by the name his great-grandfather used before he Anglicized it after he immigrated here. I suppose you think it somehow reflects adversely on his policies and fitness for the office he seeks.
Now do Bernie Sanders and John Kerry.
That's interesting Howl-hard.
Expected, coulda, woulda, shoulda represent the state of JournoListic art.
Isn't it weird that Nuclear power is the solution to both AI electricity needs and global warming hysteria, yet the only solution green weenies ever propose is "no more oil." Because they don't want to solve the problem. They want to pretend they are "fighting" Big Oil. While using Big Oil's products to Tweet about how they are "fighting" Big Oil.
Germany used to be serious. Germany used to be industrious. Germany had a lot of nuclear power plants. Then Germany elected Greens. And Germany went stupid. And Germany closed their nukes. Now Germany has the sads. And winter is coming. Poor Germany. It's not easy being green.
Very adult, Howard.....not.
Our only problem is that the ubserious people, i.e., those with luxury beliefs, are in the seats of power.
There is only so much electrical efficiency that you can squeeze out of computers. Any advances in electrical efficiency are usually offset by demanded increases in speed and capacity. They've already eliminated most of the computer things that have been high consumers of power. (Like CRTs, mechanical hard drives, CD and DVD drives, ect.) Anyone who is a big cheerleader for AI does not really believe that Climate Change is a real threat.
For example: AI is a giant revolution like the assembly line was. Was the assembly line good or bad for Climate Change?
That's not going to happen because if a company reduces its power consumption, they reduce their AI efficiency and will lose market share to other companies.
I guess we must have upgraded our problematic power grid while I wasn't looking? Double the electrical output and distribute it how?
But will it become more efficient at a higher rate than it's expansion into the world economy? I don't think so. In the past, computers became more efficient, but they also became more popular, so it was still a net gain in energy consumption.
At my old job, they built us an office in the warehouse and it had lots of fiberglass insulation in the walls. We had to constantly use the air conditioner because of all the heat that our computers put out.
Anything related to the climate "crisis" is just PR and marketing. Their real reasons for reducing power and water consumption is simple: it costs money and they want to reduce their costs.
Occam's razor applies here.
Only France and the newer former eastbloc countries are remotely sensible about power in Europe.
A.I. will replace many jobs and its electrical needs will hasten nuclear power.
Make that strong and futile action against climate change. Let's remember that coal-generated power in China and India.
Also, humans have thrived when the weather has been warm. Let's see what happens.
Will Clerical Intelligence (CI) ever surpass Albert [Einstein] Intelligence (AEI)? And at what climate, carbon cost?
A fair point, loudog, but as Rhardin points out, there is always recapture.
So I acknowledged your point, but you also ignore the likelyhood that any form of AGI, much less SGI, is likely to be of significant assistance with whatever human caused warming (or indeed any climate change) may occur.
Loudog, I've seen that. Very oldschool
Strong element of social control to the efforts to alarm us about climate change.
"technology will find solutions" works better if you don't outlaw a bunch of the possible solutions - like coal, nuclear, and new hydro.
CAGW is the biggest scam in the history of the world. Two professors at Yale and MIT established in June 2024 paper that even if the US and the entire world achieved net zero, it wouldn't make one bit of difference in the planet's temperature in 2100.
The Left has been wrong for 50 years. Why are they right now?
The con game is to set a date in the near distance future. In this case the year is 2050. We spend trillions on wind, solar and batteries to achieve net zero. The Street and fat cats all make their millions. But we don't find out if net zero worked until 2100; when we are all dead.
This is obvious to me. I can't understand why other people can't figure this out.
Our power prices will triple until people figure out they've been duped.
“Even though electricity demand from A.I. is expected to at least double in the coming years, the efficiency of the technology could increase at an even higher rate....”
So, they’ll make it up in volume. Got it.
Instead it's busy on the fusion power problem, to make the scarcity issue go away.
"Anyone modestly familiar with the increase in capacity of computer chips over time knows there are engineering gains to be realized."
This reminds me of the story of the turkey and the farmer, who was the turkey's best buddy, putting a roof over his head and food in his crop every day, until one day the turkey found out that things can change, even if they seemed like they never would.
The obvious lies about climate is what made me first understand that basically they lie to get what they want. And yes, I wish that I did know who "they" was.
You folks are so kind to allow me to laugh at your expense.
I'ma earth science influencer. Global warmerung is like a slow motion car crash.
Weapons grade byproducts are a major concern. Eloi Musk says we can power the hole planet with a 100-sq mile solar array in the desert. No one is listening to him either.
Bitcoin is the gold standard for cryptocurrencies (see what I did there?) because in order to "mine" Bitcoin "proof of work" is required, which involves essentially investing enough energy to power computer processors to solve mathematical problems of ever-increasing complexity. That coupled with the essentially unalterable rules governing the issuance of the currency means that (in theory) Bitcoin cannot be devalued by inflation.
One thought that has occurred to me is that a country such as Iceland, which has practically unlimited reserves of thermal energy, or a country willing to invest in and dedicate nuclear power facilities to the mining of Bitcoin (France?) could relatively easily capture a huge share of the limited Bitcoin production, thus making themselves wealthy and devaluing Bitcoin at the same time.
I am neither an economist nor a computer scientist, and the idea of "solving" equations (even with a computer) is mystifying to me, so I'm probably missing something. Why hasn't this happened?
To clarify, the real issue with regard to the value and utility of energy is not so much the ability to produce energy, but the ability to distribute it efficiently. That is not a problem with Bitcoin (which is why the loud and energy intensive Bitcoin mining operations are typically located in rural areas). So why don't the people at the sources of energy take advantage of this?
there was the Medieval Warming (damn those gas powered wagons) and the little ice age of the late 18th and early 19th Century,,
Good news is that massive electrical load will lead to CO2 ppm’s warming ever so slightly the atmosphere that currently is headed into a cooling cycle.
All parts of the electricity sector should benefit and not just because of AI. Electricity demand will soar over the next decade or two. One could see this coming 5-10 years ago. [That's why Nat Grid focused on electricity, and shed its gas assets]. The sector will need mountains of capital.[ Nat Grid did a massive rights in Q2.] It's a critical sector so investors will have to be given a decent return on capital.
so, tldr; but..
and it could speed the global transition to cleaner power"
How's it Supposed to to THAT?
by burning up all the available energy and making us get more? or what?
okay, i did the reading, AND the comments..
And STILL can't Even Begin To SEE HOW it would "speed the global transition"?
it's going to make more efficent solar panels? How MUCH more? and HOW?
You and Cook should get along well. You're both stuck in 1968.
Everything is a tradeoff, Howard. Commercial nuke plants don't make plutonium for specificall for weapons. However. If atoms frighten you there is always hydroelectric power. Very safe and clean.
A slow motion car crash that has been going on for thousands of years.
Howard has bought it, big time. He's scared.
Efficiency only goes so far: are 5 inefficient vehicles worse than 400,000 efficient vehicles?
The electricity savings from a world population living in pods and eating only bugs will more than compensate for the electricity requirements of AI. Our required, implanted control technology will run off body heat, probably.
There's an interesting backstory here that I've not seen covered, in this age of the Green New Deal and the push to covert to things 'Eco'. In spite of all the hyped-up talk, in spite of all the policy yammering, there is a quiet, methodical push going on in the energy world. It has to do with two developments in technology: Bitcoin mining, and Artificial Intelligence.
I came across it by accident, farting around on Google maps, satellite view. the thing is, in spite of all the policy argle-bargle being spouted about new ways of having energy, these two technology sectors are voracious consumers of it, electricity. Far in excess of what the GND could ever produce. If you go to Google maps, satellite view, and pull up some old infrastructure - like a manufacturing plant, or an old brick foundry, or a steel plant, or a defunct coal power-gen plant. The thing that immediately leaps out, is industrial electrical infrastructure. Electrical substations, usually. And if you look in their proximity, you will see brand new buildings, all lined up in rows. Server farms - housing the computer horsepower needed to mine Bitcoin, or house A.I. I found them in Texas around some of the old Alcoa brick manufacturers, but I've found them springing up everywhere - really, anywhere that there's an under-utilized substation. It is becoming a plug & play endeavor.
don't worry, technology will find solutions... which is what is said by people who oppose taking strong action on climate change.
In my experience, it is more often used by the advocates of strong change where the technology does not yet exist to reach “net zero”.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন