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
    0
    ·
    5 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months 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
        0
        ·
        5 months 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.