46
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by gerikson@awful.systems to c/techtakes@awful.systems

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] self@awful.systems 8 points 9 months ago
[-] blakestacey@awful.systems 8 points 9 months ago

It's not even the right decade; the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence was in 1956.

[-] froztbyte@awful.systems 4 points 9 months ago

rubber duck replying, with a stuck posting key

this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024
46 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1481 readers
323 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS