I agree in principle, but it’s the same as linking any other environmental harm to individual choice. It would be nice if we all agreed not to use the tool, but it’s a massive collective action problem that requires regulation. If just the few of us who care opt out, it won’t change anything. - ThreadSky

aselbst.bsky.social • 66 days ago

I agree in principle, but it’s the same as linking any other environmental harm to individual choice. It would be nice if we all agreed not to use the tool, but it’s a massive collective action problem that requires regulation. If just the few of us who care opt out, it won’t change anything.

Reposted from Aparna Nair

I know academics who use AI regularly, for work and play, and I'd really like them, and universities, to tell me how they contend with AI's bottomless appetites for power and water.

Is asking ChatGPT to interpret a Xmas song or making it write your syllabus worth this to you?

Comments

dysamoria.com•66 days ago

Just as when we’re told to recycle & conserve and then watch as:

1. Corporations recycle fuck all; Restaurants, offices, grocery stores, etc. are constant streams of egregious waste

2. We discover that much of what we put in recycling gets landfilled/burned

3. Toxic shit is in recycled plastics

dysamoria.com•66 days ago

When the system is fucking bullshit, individual actions of civilians are the scapegoats to distract from the worst offenders: corporations.

desdarkdesigns.bsky.social•65 days ago

But in this case it isn't putting the blame on people (Even tho yeah, people shouldn't rely on AIgen tech cuz it's not really reliable at all).

Regulation doesn't happen if there is no popular will and if people are not educated that doesn't happen.

desdarkdesigns.bsky.social•65 days ago

This tech just have like 90% negatives, yet the evangelist try their best to obfuscate them.

All the while the water and electrical use fuck over communities, the usage by corps fuck people job security, the usage of bad actors fuck everyone.

desdarkdesigns.bsky.social•65 days ago

People need to know what happens when the use this stuff and what they are contributing to when they use it if you want them to actually take actions.

And it's clear that it has to be done over and over again or people will just shrug even when they are actively fucked over by it.

aaroth.bsky.social•66 days ago

I also don't understand what makes environmental concerns about AI per se special as opposed to general energy consumption. The right policy interventions to internalize externalities of e.g. burning carbon seem like they should be at the energy production level, not what the energy is used for.

aselbst.bsky.social•66 days ago

It’s that we’re burning much more and using much more water than before just because of AI, and aren’t bothering to question whether it’s worth it. So the issue is general, but AI itself is the accelerant.

aselbst.bsky.social•66 days ago

It’s not like we adequately addressed the issue before AI, but the response shouldn’t be “then why care about AI since this was already a problem” but “holy crap it’s a five alarm fire now”.

aaroth.bsky.social•66 days ago

Sure, the problem can become more urgent but that doesn't mean the nature of the solution changes. And I don't think the right solution now or before is to try and decide in a top-down way whether AI (or anything else) is "worth it". For many uses I'm sure it is. If its causing environmental harms

desdarkdesigns.bsky.social•65 days ago

But it's not really worth it....
For one it's losing billions, we are heading to a very likely crash in the tech market.

desdarkdesigns.bsky.social•65 days ago

The info it creates is a lot of the time nonsense so students will have to work harder in research to make sure shit is true. Like the whole post about a student believe ChatGPT saying that Greek is a combination of 4 languages when it isn't.

dysamoria.com•66 days ago

It’s not. ChatGPT is no improvement over human labor. It’s worse. Image gen tools are entirely useless for specific needs unless the specific need is nigh impossible to control samey bullshit. It’s not useful data science tech. It’s pathological technology for the hope of eliminating human workers.

aaroth.bsky.social•66 days ago

In that case the environmental impact should be pretty mild since people are bound to cotton on soon and stop using a useless product.

aaroth.bsky.social•66 days ago

then the solution now (and before) is to price them in, by making it more expensive. And I don't understand the reason why the "it" should be AI as opposed to (e.g.) electricity or carbon emissions. What do you think are the appropriate regulatory responses?

aselbst.bsky.social•66 days ago

At a high level saying “price them in” is just economic-speak for “there oughta be a law.” We’ve known that for years on all these issues. The important question is why we haven’t regulated so far. What are the power structures that have prevented such regulation over time and how to defeat them?

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply