Tim BrayMar 13

RE: https://cosocial.ca/@evan/115580076628853324

This was posted 4 months ago, i.e. forever in LLM time. I would really like to see a fully-worked through analysis of the actual GHG cost of #GenAI in general and for coding applications specifically. Including, obviously, training, data centre infrastructure, silicon fabrication, etc.

The reason: I have trouble reconciling these numbers with the insane volumes of investment capital going into the space.

Show threadEvan ProdromouMar 13

@timbray my previous job was building greenhouse gas inventories.

Data centres are responsible for about 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions. AI is responsible for about 15% of the data centre emissions, or about 0.15% of global emissions.

People who talk about AI burning up the planet don't spend a lot of time thinking about what's really burning up the planet: fossil fuels for transportation and heating, deforestation, and cattle.

Show threadEvan ProdromouMar 13
@timbray computer usage just isn't as carbon intensive a process as driving a car. Even with hundreds of billions being spent on new data centres, it's not a big part of the global emissions profile.
Show threadEvan Prodromou

@timbray I think it's a good thing to try to reduce the emissions from data centres and AI. We need to do that with every single human activity that exists.

But I don't think it's fair to say that using AI is a singularly irresponsible activity and morally indefensible on ecological grounds.

Mar 13 at 5:41pmWeb
Show threadNick DotyMar 13
@evan @timbray right, we need to reduce emissions in every sector of society. In tech, where we work, AI has led most companies to abandon their promises and increase emissions where they had been on track to reducing them. It's not as significant as transportation or heating or food, but for our industry, it's a huge backwards step, so it makes sense that we would be upset about it.
Show threadEvan ProdromouMar 13
@npdoty @timbray that's a good way to put it!
Show threadCassandra is only carbon nowMar 13

@evan @timbray If we need to do that with every single human activity, why *exempt* AI, when it's badly exacerbating an existing problem?

I think your figures are probably wild underestimates given the corporate secrecy around actual usage, but even so, can we really afford to go 0.15% in the wrong direction on the climate crisis?