5 ms·
This is an absurd argument. Any one source is a drop in the bucket.
by _aavaa_ 23d ago
This is an absurd argument. Any one source is a drop in the bucket.
- andrewflnr 23d agoAny given optimization reduces running time of a program, but you should still focus on your hot loops.
- _aavaa_ 23d agoThat’s an argument about sequencing, not of necessity. And as an analogy it breaks down because we need to reduce/eliminate all sources of pollution, not just the current biggest one.
- andrewflnr 22d agoSequencing and necessity are not separable in practice. Time and resources are finite, so prioritization is mandatory. If you define everything as "necessary" and try to do it all at once, you just fail even harder. Edit: Perhaps a more interesting question is whether we should rate pollution sources by absolute amount or amount per actual utility produced. Gas-turbine-powered AI datacenters surely rate abysmally low on utility efficiency.
- _aavaa_ 21d agoThe original comment I replied to states: “A 50% reduction would change nothing, reduction to 0 would change nothing.” When talking about individual data centers. My point is that this is true of basically any since source of pollution. You can argue about sequencing if you’d like, but every individual source must be dealt with. And when it comes to the atmosphere and the cumulative effects of each tonne of CO2 has on the climate, it is better and cheaper to prevent adding new CO2 than it will be to remove it once it’s added.
- DiscourseFan 23d agoI think international shipping produces significantly more CO2 than any single other source
- bamboozled 23d agoYet the AI boom relies on global shipping to be produced , so “AI” is “additive”.
- DiscourseFan 23d ago[flagged]
- deleted 23d ago[deleted]
- tomhow 22d agoWe've banned this account.
- DiscourseFan 22d ago[dead]
- _aavaa_ 23d agoBut not when you look at just one ship, or just one datacenter.
- AuthAuth 19d agoIts not an absurd argument. You should think why this source of emission demands so much focus because its not emission related. If it were emission related you would be focusing on reductions in 100s of other places before bothering with datacenters. They've got the conclusion (they want datacenters gone) and they are going searching for possible any reason.