☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆Dec 13
The fallacy here is the assumption that if LLMs didn’t exist then we wouldn’t find other ways to use that power.
Show threadOceanDec 13
That’s not a fallacy. REDUCE, reuse, recycle. We shouldn’t be looking for new ways to consume more energy or celebrating massive infrastructure projects to power chat bots. The project is cool though
Show thread☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆Dec 14
Yes, it is a fallacy because the problem is with the economy system as opposed to a specific technology. The liberal tendency often defaults to a form of procedural opposition such as voting against, boycotting, or attempting to regulate a problem out of existence without seizing the means to effect meaningful change. It’s an idealist mindset that mistakes symbolic resistance for tangible action. Capitalism is a a system based around consumption, and it will continue to use up resources at an accelerating rate regardless of what specific technology is driving the consumption.
Show threadAndrii ZvoryginDec 14
@[email protected] @[email protected] well it's actually China that is using by far the most fossil fuels in the world. US has the largest AI build-out, China is second place. And don't insult the Chinese by calling them capitalist please.
Show thread☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆Dec 14

That’s just saying that China is one of the most populous countries in the world that also happens to be a global manufacturing hub. China still uses fossil fuels, but I think it’s fair to call it an electrostate at this point.

Finally, it’s also worth noting that China has a concrete plan for becoming carbon neutral, which it’s already ahead of

China’s carbon emissions set for structural decline from next year

Emissions by world’s most polluting country could peak this year after surge in clean energy investments

The Guardian
Show threadAndrii Zvorygin
@[email protected] It's worth noting that China's electricity is 29% of their energy consumption and that renewables make 33% of that. And so overall, China is about 9 to 10% renewables. Which is a higher percentage than most of the world, but still after fossil fuels that's a 10x decline in energy consumption. Whereas most of the world is closer to 20x decline.
Dec 14 at 2:13amWeb
Show thread☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆Dec 14
First of all, carbon footprint in China is already far lower than in any developed country. Second, as I already pointed out, most countries simply outsourced their production to China.
Show threadAndrii ZvoryginDec 14
@[email protected] Carbon footprint is just like a globalist metric that has no bearing on the survivability of the majority of people over the next 10 to 15 years. The main metric that actually matters is land distribution. And how what percentage of the population has access to agricultural land where they can grow enough food to sustain themselves and their families. In China that number is 55%, which is very good. In Russia it's 30%, but unfortunately it's falling. It's going in the wrong direction. Whereas in the West it's 1 to 5 percent It's quite possible many will perish the majority
Show thread☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆Dec 14
Carbon footprint shows how much energy is being used per capita. Population density is way past the point where it’s practical for people to live off the land in some subsistence living scenario. What is more likely to happen is that we’ll see things like indoor farming being developed so that cities can feed themselves. This will become particularly important as climate continues to deteriorate, as indoor farms will make it possible to have stable environment to grow food in.
Show threadAndrii ZvoryginDec 14
@[email protected] indoor farming is much more energy intensive. You can't defy the laws of physics sorry. Energy decline is certain, all feasts come to an end. The longer you stay in the denial and refuse to adapt the worse it is for you and your kindred. It is extremely practical to have land distribution because we have much better technology to make it possible, like high speed communication, local large language models, and permaculture. Huge percentage of food in Russia is already produced on small family plots. It is actually the only good outcome available that makes sense with the geophysical constraints on energy.
Show thread☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆Dec 14
Nobody is talking about defying laws of physics here. Your whole premise rests on fossil fuels running out and being essential for energy production. This is simply false.