Technology

59092 readers

6622 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

648

Generative AI is reportedly tripling carbon dioxide emissions from data centers (www.techradar.com)

submitted 1 month ago by JRepin@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world

68 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/20289663

A report from Morgan Stanley suggests the datacenter industry is on track to emit 2.5 billion tons by 2030, which is three times higher than the predictions if generative AI had not come into play.

The extra demand from GenAI will reportedly lead to a rise in emissions from 200 million tons this year to 600 million tons by 2030, thanks largely to the construction of more data centers to keep up with the demand for cloud services.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] alienanimals@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

"The only way to interpret statistics is with a healthy dose of skepticism and a thorough understanding of their context."

While people in this thread jump at the opportunity for this slice of statistics to affirm their confirmation biases, intelligent people will ask what the total carbon dioxide output looks like by comparison.

[–] Facebones@reddthat.com 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You're quick to imply that this study is bullshit, yet offer no counter argument except "believing statistics is for losers lul"

So where are your sources to refute the article?

[–] NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Ita also trivial to come to the same conclusion at a smaller scale.

You can run a LLM at home and see the amount of GPU & power resources it takes to compute the larger models. If I ran that full time, your household bill will most likely be 3x alone.

[–] alienanimals@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Never said the study was bullshit. I just said to look at the bigger picture.

I would show you how Google works and provide an article, but your reading comprehension leads me to believe you'd come up with another straw man fallacy to support your confirmation bias.

[–] Facebones@reddthat.com -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Oh fuck off already, nobody cares.

Do we have an iamverysmart community? We could use one.

[–] alienanimals@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Lol you cared enough to respond. Sorry you're too stupid to hold a conversation.

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Can't be logical here. This is a topic that's like discussing immigration with Republicans.