Comment by moritzwarhier | Hacker News Reader

Comment by moritzwarhier | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That's true, and I am not anti-AI. I was not only thinking about the environmental effects of some single prompt or a certain amount of tokens.

Neither did I want to say that a car is always more wasteful than some alternative.

But defaulting to the behemoth is inefficient, unless everyone is driven to do it: then it's in some way reasonable.

By adding "corrupt" and "dependent", as well as the economic terms, I wanted to offer a broader critique and create an analogy, not just talk about energy usage on its own.

What I had in mind was: it's easier to go many places that are a mile or less from me, by car. Because everything is obstructed by cars. And I'm atrophied by lack of movement. Best would be to drive somewhere to move/walk.

People already do that in masses.

And doing shopping by car, because everything else seems unbearable, also takes away your time, apart from wasting energy compared to more, smaller shops that would be reachable by foot, bycicle etc.

I guess you know the argument.

Today, people's thinking atrophies because their LLM is probably right in their summarization of some Wikipedia article, plus 2-3 other random sources.

Or so.

Using the Wikipedia search function is not expensive.

But, I mostly had a bigger picture in mind than what is the cost of inference.

I think it's a good analogy in many ways, and personally I think car-centric society has a lot of flaws. I think the ease that AI brings to tasks may erode mental capabilities in the same way cars have eroded our collective physical health.* That said, it doesn't seem to me that we would be better off without cars altogether, despite all the related issues.

I am concerned about the environmental impacts that AI poses, but they don't seem to me to be so catastrophic. Solar and battery tech has made enormous leaps in the past couple decades, and we will need to pivot to clean energy future irrespective of AI.

*This said, I have become gradually more alarmed over the past decade at the lack of epistemological rigor in the general public, as made apparent through the rise of social media. I don't know that AI becoming a truth-seeking crutch for people wouldn't be more good than bad.

> it doesn't seem to me that we would be better off without cars altogether, despite all the related issues

Oh my god, no. I also want the benefits of automobiles! They are strictly more capable than, say, trains. That's where I would derail the discussion completely when going into details, but no, I am not against cars as a technology.

Apart from all the ethical and social arguments (logistics, ambulances, the elderly, etc etc). But that's not where I wanted to go.

I was making a leap here simply because of the whole complex around prisoner's, dilemma, the commons, state economy, and so forth.

Since at least ~100yrs ago, I guess cars and streets as the primary mode of transportation have also "won the vote" / are what the majority wants, so it's also an interesting analogy for diminishing returns maybe.

Building out more car infrastructure is certainly not controversial where there is absolutely none but there are commercial or residential buildings.

Anyway, lots of associations are worth considering here IMO. The ultimate limiting capacity here, when disregarding all environmental or health concerns, is simply space and the positive externalities (cities etc) around existing infrastructure.

The problem with grandiose statements like the GGP's are that they compare a realized outcome with an entirely idealized outcome they have in their brains as an alternative.

The thread is full of statements more grandiose and idealized than mine.

> Take any stock index, remove AI stocks, what do you see? That's right! Nothing...

> we make everything else in the world worse in order to maximize the profit

> destroying the planet for data centers

> I was not only thinking about the environmental effects of some single prompt or a certain amount of tokens.

Hand wringing about AI datacenter's environmental impact is well and good. We should keep the data centers accountable for their consumption and waste.

I just wish the same people had been upset the last 20 years with poor water resource management in a lot of areas (the west US especially) with urban, ranching and farming development.

> That's true, and I am not anti-AI.

Me neither!

The past may be past, but it's important that even now we point out the relative scale of resource usage, pollution, etc going forward of everything from cars to AI to golf courses to beef.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com