this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
27 points (84.6% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26325 readers
1738 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I see news stories that will give examples of how much energy a type of technology uses (usually AI or crypto). They'll claim very big numbers like the whole ecosystem using "as much as a small country" or one instance of use being "as much as an average home uses in a year."

With the crypto ecosystem being so big and I'm less inclined to defend it, I haven't thought as much about the claims. But with AI while it still has problematic aspects, it also has a lot of useful applications. When I run a single query the idea it's the same energy as driving my car ten miles or whatever doesn't seem to pass the smell test.

How are these numbers generated? Historically media doesn't do great with science reporting ("a cure for cancer was just invented" etc) so just trying to get some context/perspective.

all 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social 23 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is a specific (and probably the most well-known) case, but for details about how the Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index is calculated, you can hit https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption and look under the header "Energy consumption model and key assumptions". There is a summary and a link to a paper detailing their methods. Skepticism about science reporting is super important! And I'm certainly willing to have my mind changed, but it looks like there's a lot of substance to these claims.

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for sharing this, just the kind of thing I was thinking about.

Are you aware of anything related to AI energy usage?

[–] aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is a paper about it by the same guy: https://archive.is/AQhiC#selection-3573.66-3573.67. I found it while reading an NYT article about AI consumption.

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I might be missing it but I don't see the link, can you reshare?

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

After posting this I just read this Ars Technica article where the headline says crypto uses over 2% of U.S. electric generation, but then if you click through to the source, it says a preliminary estimate is between .6% and 2.3%.

[–] doctordevice@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago

And this is why scientists tend to dislike science journalism. Whether intentional or not, it misses out the nuance that scientific findings usually require. And then those misrepresented facts start getting quoted elsewhere until you get a web of "sources" that just point in a circle and can eventually cut out the actual source that includes the nuance.

Always be skeptical of journalism headlines and check the body. Then be skeptical of that and check the source. Then still remain skeptical of that because one study doesn't determine scientific consensus. Before long you'll be in the rabbit hole of the replication crisis.

But don't write off science. It's flawed because humans are flawed, but it's still our best tool for determining truth.

[–] Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There is an interesting article here https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200131-why-and-how-does-future-planet-count-carbon . It does not directly address your question though. Some BBC articles estimate their energy usage, their methodology is in the link.

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

That was pretty interesting, thank you!

[–] qooqie@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I will say these headlines are slightly misleading because you can have nations as small as the Vatican or they could be referring to small nations like Romania and the sort. And that is vastly different energy usage between the two

[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

For me, the energy consumption estimates are meaningless without a comparison to alternatives. For example, the headline "2% of electricity is used for crypto" is meaningless without an honest comparison against alternatives, like energy cost of gold mining, banking institutions, and financial transaction networks.

After all, a single Google search has an ecological footprint.

I think a lot of headlines are not exactly honest or at least diligent with that side of the story.

[–] Tommelot@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Crypto is an alternative to none of those things. Its a ponzy scheme with extra steps.

[–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 1 points 7 months ago

With prejudice.

[–] fr0g@feddit.de -5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

But with AI while it still has problematic aspects, it also has a lot of useful applications.

Ah yes, stealing content en masse and polluting the whole internet with junk content in the hopes of being able to monopolize entire industries. Peak usefulness.

(There are of course many useful applications of AI in general. But they also tend to not burn through as much energy and processing power as LLMs)

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I use an LLM pretty much every day to assist with software development. I find it to be very useful.

[–] Phanatik@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's good for you, however, content generation from these models has still polluted the internet and using Google's Image search is impossible.

[–] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago

That's 100% on Google.

They abandoned their search tool like 5 years ago.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

Yeah, yeah, that's what they said about the steam engine, and... Oh, it did exactly what you said. Nevermind.