We’re burning the earth with our power consumption and polluting every online database or repository with hallucinations all for pictures of political figures doing ballet, and it is eventually going to cause a catastrophe, so yes, sooner would be better.
Ok, just wanted to check I wasnt misunderstanding. Personally I’d rather just reduce gasolene consumption by 0.001% rather than kill off thousands to stop the energy use of LLMs, but thats just my preference.
There are plenty of plans already in place. EVs are beating ICE cars, mass transit is coming back into fashion in a lot of places, hell you could even just increase taxes on it to drive down consumption.
All are things I’d suggest would be better than your sister/father/partner being killed in order to sour people on the idea of using LLMs.
None of that has anything to do with AI consuming upwards of 30% of all power in some US States. None of that has anything to do with AI in 2025 being run on 35% renewable electricity and 50% or more fossil fuels which could have been used by citizens and consumers at lower prices instead.
Even if Elon Musk weren’t running illegal Natural Gas generators in Texas to power Grok, even if AI suddenly became 100% solar powered today in some fantasy fiction, it is still producing nothing of value but creating serious risks and we should still shut it down.
Let me try to creat a visual for you:
[///////]
Human-Use Power
[//////////] = [///////] + [///]
All power generated = Human-Use + AI
And in 4 years:
[/////////////] = [///////] + [//////]
You see that? You see how its using more? We’re already facing cataclysmic changes in weather patterns risking countless habitats including human ones, and we’re going to practically double power consumption so Trump can make a short video of his jet shitting on protestors.
Saying its worth the deaths of thousands of people to knock maybe one part in a thousand of human carbon emissions is not.
Let me give you some scale. In 2024 estimated Power usage on AI was 415TWh In the same year total energy usage was around 592 Exajoules or around 164,444 TWhr.
The "o"s are AI usage the +s are other energy usages, the +s are significantly more polluting as about 2/3rds of them are burning fossil fuels directly for heating and transport.
And yet power usage in places like Virginia are soaring far past your claim of a mere fraction of a percent according to EIA, in addition to the fact that nearly all of these facilities have their own gas burner generators built in, and it’s expected to keep doubling power usage as more and more datacenters go online.
Why do you keep trying to justify throwing gas on the fire because the fire was already there? It doesn’t matter how clean or dirty the power used by humans was before, you will never be able to justify using even more power on worthless bullshit.
A) electricity is only a small fraction of energy use, as I stated before
B) there are also areas where none of the energy use is AI, cherry picking small regions to make your argument is dishonest
I’ll try one last time, but I won’t respond again. Its fine to think AI is a waste and energy shouldn’t be spent on in. Saying that it is worth the deaths of thousands of people in order to cut carbon emissions by a fraction of a percent makes you a psychopath.
We’re burning the earth with our power consumption and polluting every online database or repository with hallucinations all for pictures of political figures doing ballet, and it is eventually going to cause a catastrophe, so yes, sooner would be better.
Ok, just wanted to check I wasnt misunderstanding. Personally I’d rather just reduce gasolene consumption by 0.001% rather than kill off thousands to stop the energy use of LLMs, but thats just my preference.
If you have a plan to do that then that’s great but this isn’t a situation where anybody is willing to make trades of one or the other.
AI doesn’t have a single profitable use case given it generates plagiarism, hallucinations, and liabilities, so there’s no reason to keep it.
There are plenty of plans already in place. EVs are beating ICE cars, mass transit is coming back into fashion in a lot of places, hell you could even just increase taxes on it to drive down consumption.
All are things I’d suggest would be better than your sister/father/partner being killed in order to sour people on the idea of using LLMs.
None of that has anything to do with AI consuming upwards of 30% of all power in some US States. None of that has anything to do with AI in 2025 being run on 35% renewable electricity and 50% or more fossil fuels which could have been used by citizens and consumers at lower prices instead.
Even if Elon Musk weren’t running illegal Natural Gas generators in Texas to power Grok, even if AI suddenly became 100% solar powered today in some fantasy fiction, it is still producing nothing of value but creating serious risks and we should still shut it down.
Let me try to creat a visual for you:
[///////]
Human-Use Power
[//////////] = [///////] + [///]
All power generated = Human-Use + AI
And in 4 years:
[/////////////] = [///////] + [//////]
You see that? You see how its using more? We’re already facing cataclysmic changes in weather patterns risking countless habitats including human ones, and we’re going to practically double power consumption so Trump can make a short video of his jet shitting on protestors.
Sure, fine. That’s a reasonable stance to take.
Saying its worth the deaths of thousands of people to knock maybe one part in a thousand of human carbon emissions is not.
Let me give you some scale. In 2024 estimated Power usage on AI was 415TWh In the same year total energy usage was around 592 Exajoules or around 164,444 TWhr.
Or to give you a visual:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++oooo
The "o"s are AI usage the +s are other energy usages, the +s are significantly more polluting as about 2/3rds of them are burning fossil fuels directly for heating and transport.
And yet power usage in places like Virginia are soaring far past your claim of a mere fraction of a percent according to EIA, in addition to the fact that nearly all of these facilities have their own gas burner generators built in, and it’s expected to keep doubling power usage as more and more datacenters go online.
Why do you keep trying to justify throwing gas on the fire because the fire was already there? It doesn’t matter how clean or dirty the power used by humans was before, you will never be able to justify using even more power on worthless bullshit.
A) electricity is only a small fraction of energy use, as I stated before
B) there are also areas where none of the energy use is AI, cherry picking small regions to make your argument is dishonest
I’ll try one last time, but I won’t respond again. Its fine to think AI is a waste and energy shouldn’t be spent on in. Saying that it is worth the deaths of thousands of people in order to cut carbon emissions by a fraction of a percent makes you a psychopath.
My argument was always limited in scope, so it’s not really dishonest to hone in on the US State with the 2nd highest power usage total.