I will preface this by saying that I care a lot about climate change and carbon usage and AI usage is not a big issue, it is in fact a distraction from where we should be focusing our efforts.

https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/carbon-footprint-c...

Watching TV isn’t cheap if you consider the impact on the climate and the cost that comes from it.

no one said its cheap though

I would like to understand if this still has truth to it.

I didn't realize Large Language Models have a direct impact on the climate.

Well, running them does. And, from what I get from the article, that's what they're trying to do: either running them or having someone do it for them as a service.

How big is that impact? Well, that's a complicated issue.

Running LLMs does not have any intrinsic impact on the climate.

If you want to talk about the impact of different power generation methods on climate change, fair enough, but I don't think this thread is the place for it. Unless of course the idea is to talk about climate change in every single thread centered on "things that consumes energy", which is approximately all of them.

Ah no, I was just strictly defining OP's comment.

Of course, I was setting up a plain definition without magnitude. The impact could be near nil, or could be huge, but an impact nonetheless.

I didn't want to deep dive on it, as I though it would sidetrack the comments. I think this is a subject that merits certain analysis, as in some cases the discourse around the energy use has been akin to the one used in the highest moments of the past crypto/NFT cycle: "Yeah, it's not clean but it could."

And to that:

- It could, but it isn't (not only because of the popular gas turbines, but with collateral damage like the water use or heating, or by other social issues around it)

- But also (and this would be more philosophical/social), even if it were clean... is it worth it?

How about indirect? At any rate, something is going on, because our summers are more and more hotter, and there are no snow during our winters. We are all noticing it but it gets shrugged off as "misremembering". I am not contributing it to running LLMs alone, however, but climate change seems real enough to me, I experience it. It is barely July and I am dying! We used to have more tolerable weather around this time of year, for a long time.

Yes, but what does climate change have to do specifically with LLMs? How are they different from any other use of energy? As far as I can tell they are better than most uses, given that (as software) they run entirely with electricity, which of course can be generated with near-zero CO2 emissions.

Given that, this interjection about climate change seems like a complete non-sequitur to the topic at hand.

I do not think it has anything to do with LLMs. That is probably the least of our issues.

Building and running LLMs is an energy intensive task. Those GPUs do not power themselves from nothing.

Degrowth is a losing political argument.

You aren't getting what you want and you're helping the arsonists win elections by going with this strategy.

The winning argument is sustainable high growth with renewable energy.

Energy being renewable or not is unrelated to climate change.

A ton of co2 is released through the production and burn of vegetal oil for example.

The CO2 removed from the air by the soy plants from which the oil comes cancels out the CO2 added by burning the oil.

Literally all the carbon in the soy oil was pulled from the atmosphere.

That's where the phrase "carbon neutral" comes from.

You seem to easily forget all the co2 used to farm those plants and transport the oil.

There is no such thing as carbon neutral as long as some metal, plastic and petrol is involved.

I agree that the production of soy oil in the current economy uses a lot of fossil fuel.

But you brought up soy oil to support your assertion that "energy being renewable or not is unrelated to climate change", which is wrong.

If it were possible to produce soy oil without using fossil fuels, then producing, using and burning soy oil would be carbon neutral.

The argument you want is we cannot simply assume that the world's economy can be weaned off of fossil fuels without a permanent and severe reduction in living standards. Maybe it can be done, maybe it cannot: it depends on how efficient the substitute energy sources get.