When you picture the tech industry, you probably think of things that don’t exist in physical space, such as the apps and internet browser on your phone. But the infrastructure required to store all this information – the physical datacentres housed in business parks and city outskirts – consume massive amounts of energy. Despite its name, the infrastructure used by the “cloud” accounts for more global greenhouse emissions than commercial flights. In 2018, for instance, the 5bn YouTube hits for the viral song Despacito used the same amount of energy it would take to heat 40,000 US homes annually.

This is a hugely environmentally destructive side to the tech industry. While it has played a big role in reaching net zero, giving us smart meters and efficient solar, it’s critical that we turn the spotlight on its environmental footprint. Large language models such as ChatGPT are some of the most energy-guzzling technologies of all. Research suggests, for instance, that about 700,000 litres of water could have been used to cool the machines that trained ChatGPT-3 at Microsoft’s data facilities. It is hardly news that the tech bubble’s self-glorification has obscured the uglier sides of this industry, from its proclivity for tax avoidance to its invasion of privacy and exploitation of our attention span. The industry’s environmental impact is a key issue, yet the companies that produce such models have stayed remarkably quiet about the amount of energy they consume – probably because they don’t want to spark our concern.

  • AIhasUse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I prefer an internet where anyone is free to share the code they want to as opposed to an internet where everything has to be submitted to an authority who has to ok it. Imagine all the innovation that would be stifled in a society where such a system was in place. If you think would prefer that, then maybe North Korea is the place where you would be happiest.

    The reason websites have things like engagement algorithms is because they are advertisement based, and they sell user data. This seems shitty at first glance, but it is what people prefer. The alternative is subscription based. Both models have been presented, and people chose what they wanted. Nobody forced them. As time goes on, things evolve. I like to think that in the future, people will move more towards decentralized, community run websites. That’s why I am on Lemmy, and I am not on Facebook. I am certainly happy that I have the freedom to choose. I am also happy that anyone has the freedom to make whatever options they want to offer.

    • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      30 days ago

      Oh, I understand. So, it was advertisers who fueled the 2021 capital riots.

      What if that authority only disallowed bad things like murder and insider trading. Hm. Yeah, that doesn’t really feel like North Korea at all.

      • AIhasUse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        It’s not only advertisers. It is a need for engagement. Facebook makes money if people are engaged, both from advertisement and selling data. People prefer to use platforms that have lots of money to put into the user experince. Maybe this will change as people become more aware, maybe with things like the fediverse.

        Oftentimes, things like murder and insider trading are at least attempted to be stopped, I don’t know what your point is there. This was a discussion on whether or not the government should stop Facebook from having code that keeps users engaged. I said it is better if the government doesn’t verify all the code that makes it on the internet. That is what the government does in places like North Korea.

        • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          29 days ago

          And why should those things be stopped? See, unlike you, “I believe in freedom.” If people don’t like their company town, they shall simply move away~.

          I said it is better if the government doesn’t verify all the code that makes it on the internet.

          You also said this apropos of nothing. I didn’t say anything about vetting code. You think I care if Biden has read your commit messages.

          • AIhasUse@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            29 days ago

            You complained about the Facebook engagement algorithm. I said they should be allowed to run the code and people use it if they choose. You disagreed.

            It is a bit weird that you’ve flipped over to my side, and now you want freedom, and you’re trying to put me over on your original side. It’s nice that we both agree now. Nice chatting.