HN reacts to a New Yorker piece on the “obscene energy demands of AI” with exactly the same arguments coiners use when confronted with the energy cost of blockchain - the product is valuable in of itself, demands for more energy will spur investment in energy generation, and what about the energy costs of painting oil on canvas, hmmmmmm???
Maybe it’s just my newness antennae needing calibrating, but I do feel the extreme energy requirements for what’s arguably just a frivolous toy is gonna cause AI boosters big problems, especially as energy demands ramp up in the US in the warmer months. Expect the narrative to adjust to counter it.
There are a few bitcoiners out there who try to claim, with a straight face, that more bitcoin mining = more greener.
As far as I can tell the argument basically boils down to “we’ll just use SO MUCH electricity that the utility will have no choice but to invest in green energy just to keep up” – but honestly I can’t make heads or tails of it.
That’s it. That’s the argument.
yep. and I like using the rule 34 defense on them: “if that were desired, someone already would’ve made it”
these fucking clowns permanently don’t want to acknowledge (or just stay willfully ignorant about?) the fact that it’s easier to do cost and regulatory arbitrage by hunting for presently-favourable miner locations from which to burn electricity than it is to invest into (and possibly, likely even, invent!) whole-ass new green tech with sufficient output for their preferred ourobouros
Oh that’s accelerationist drivel if I’ve ever seen it.
Also, this has been bouncing around in my head ever since I’d learned of the term: “e/acc? More like, “Eek! Ack!”
Yea kinda like during a famine the best course of action is for everyone to hoard and binge on as much food as possible. That will force the crops to become more bountiful.