-9
People on Lemmy love to cry AI IS BURNING THE PLANNET but have they ever really looked at the numbers?
- 1 kg Beef = 60kg CO2 - source
- 1000km Return flight = 314kg CO2 - source
- 1 Bitcoin transaction = 645kg of CO2 - source
- 1000 AI prompts = 3kg of CO2 - source including training
I'm a strong advocate for privacy, and I myself am Anti generative AI in many ways, but can we please stop shouting that AI IS BRUNING THE PLANNET, it weakens our position to push back at actual issues with AI like privacy.
Here is a detailed breakdown debunking that AI is destroying the planet: https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversations-about
So ChatGPT isn't as polluting as the beef industry, what's your point? We can go on asking for LLMs to make pictures of big tiddy anime girls and the answers to simple questions that it still gets wrong because people eat meat still?
Just like bitcoin and all the other pump and dump cryptos, LLM chatbots created a market that didn't exist before that needlessly adds excess pollution (and to be clear, I agree with OPs primary point that the environmental impact isn't the worst thing about them), and they're trying to force them into every aspect of our lives whether they're suited to it or not.
Highlighting the environmental (and commercial, social and privacy) concerns is one tool to get policy makers to maybe think twice about signing another huge deal to get ChatGPT embedded in yet another part of our lives.
My point?
If you complain the world is burning because of AI but you eat beef, you are contributing >2000 times as much as a non-beef eater who uses AI. Making you a hypocrite who is mad at the wrong things.
Neither AI not beef are a necessity.
It's highlighting hypocrisy. It's asking: do you take this problem seriously, or are you just complaining?
Having LLMs shoved into everything is a serious problem. But it's a problem the way that forced updates and invasion of privacy were already a problem. Fixating on energy use is pretense. It's working backwards to point at the negative externalities of something you've already made conclusions about, as if those factors were relevant to your conclusion. Using that as rhetoric is the nature of bad faith.