First-of-its-kind US bill would address the environmental costs of the technology, but there’s a long way to go.

one assessment suggests that ChatGPT, the chatbot created by OpenAI in San Francisco, California, is already consuming the energy of 33,000 homes. It’s estimated that a search driven by generative AI uses four to five times the energy of a conventional web search. Within years, large AI systems are likely to need as much energy as entire nations.

  • Nudding@lemmy.world
    368·
    10 months ago

    Lots of people give a shit, they’re just not in any sort of position to do anything about it.

    We won’t treat climate change seriously until we get a significant climate related mass casualty event in North America.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        172·
        10 months ago

        Giving a shit about the horse barn after someone’s already let out all the horses doesn’t really make a difference.

      • tal@lemmy.today
        91·
        10 months ago

        gulf streams collapse

        Nah, there were some people worried about it, but it won’t happen.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream

        The possibility of a Gulf Stream collapse has been covered by some news publications.[vague] The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report addressed this issue specifically, and found that based on model projections and theoretical understanding, the Gulf Stream will not shut down in a warming climate. While the Gulf Stream is expected to slow down as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) weakens, it will not collapse, even if the AMOC were to collapse. Nevertheless, this slowing down will have significant effects, including a rise in sea level along the North American coast, reduced precipitation in the midlatitudes, changing patterns of strong precipitation around Europe and the tropics, and stronger storms in the North Atlantic.

          • FaceDeer@kbin.social
            91·
            10 months ago

            Hey now. Rule one of this community is “Be civil - Attack the argument, not the person.” What does any of this genocide stuff have to do with the argument being discussed here?

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              83·
              10 months ago

              The discussion here? Nothing. The person trying to have a discussion with me? Everything. Because yesterday, he said that I support genocide both due to the fact that I will do anything to keep Trump out of office to save my queer daughter’s life and due the the fact that I exist. And now he wants to chat with me as if he never said that.

              No one did anything about it in this community when he said those things. And, believe it or not, the topic of discussion was not genocide.

              Why should I let someone who was that hateful towards me act like nothing was ever said a day later?

              • agent_flounder@lemmy.worldEnglish
                81·
                10 months ago

                I’m with you on this 100% and not just because my own queer daughter’s life is on the line.

                If we are gonna play the ‘be civil’ card, play it on everyone. Certainly don’t overlook people accusing others of genocide. You’d think that didn’t need to be said but shrug

              • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                52·
                10 months ago

                Because it’s against the sub’s rules to attack him personally.

                Why not block him? You’ll never see him again.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  44·
                  10 months ago

                  He attacked me personally repeatedly and nothing was done. Why is he being held to a different standard?

                  • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                    34·
                    10 months ago

                    I’m not holding him to a different standard. I wasn’t in whatever fight you and he might have had, I don’t know what community it happened in.