this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
224 points (94.1% liked)

Technology

34789 readers
348 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 19 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Not really. Every energy solution produces some kind of waste which can't be recycled. Saving energy is always good. It also saves budget and space. I'd say your opinion is a contribution to very unsustainable future.

[–] AIhasUse@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Even solar and wind? What are the waste products with these that can't be recycled?

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I didn't downvote but wine turbines are not easily recyclable due to all the fiberglass and resin. They're finding new uses but lots still get buried in landfills when they're decommissioned

[–] AIhasUse@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Thanks, I appreciate the answer. The downvotes for questions blow my mind. It's like there is some group of people that has been tricked into thinking that questions are an attack or something.

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The issue is that there are a lot of bad actors "just asking questions". You're not one. A lot of folks have a hard time assuming good intentions because of all the shit people pushing bad agendas by feigning ignorance.

I try to assume the best, but I don't always make it.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago

I haven't seen much sealioning on Lemmy. People here tend to be pretty upfront with their (strongly-held) opinions.

[–] mr_nEJC@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

This can and will change; see https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67718719 for one of the options.

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago

They have batteries, solar panels take space and lose efficiency over time (can be recycled I think) and I think wind turbines use some lubricants and paint that are always bad for environment. These still aren't too bad though. Nuclear energy is worse in this department. Used fuel cells can only be recycled as weapons which is worse than no recycling