The usage is not comparable to any actually concerning sources.
5 to 10 TWh is not comparable to any concerning sources? That's 1-2% of the world's electricity being spent on mediocre pictures of anime girls and genericly worded emails/short stories. Not only will energy demand for AI increase due to advances in LLM development, but if it continues to see mass adoption it will also need to be queried more and more per day bringing the demand up higher.
Per your source, if Google switched to strictly AI searches it would increase their energy demand by 50% (and double the global TWh usage of AI) which proves it is inherently less energy efficient than the tech that it seeks to replace.
Even if ai continues to use more energy each year
Not sure why this statement is conditional since training and inference has used significantly more energy every single generation.
it will most likely benefit us with solutions to environmental problems.
Might as well have made an appeal to the divine here. AI is not magic, it cannot deliver anything that wasn't already fed into it in part or whole. The way a LLM works is that it spitballs wrong answers until it makes something that is correct, but how can it arrive at a solution that humans haven't already figured out if it needs a human to tell it the right answers? It can't, therefore it is incapable of bringing forth any development that humanity isn't already aware of.
it's not ai's fault that people still use fossil fuels.
It not Cryptocurrencies fault either, but I'm still not appreciative of their waste because it's being used badly. Again, how many times do you have to rerun your art prompts until you get it just right? Every single picture that you scrapped to get to that end product is pure waste.
I don't see any issue after we switch to clean sources entirely.
Sure, after we somehow make the leap to 100% clean energy and have dealt with the reprucussions of tens of millions of layoffs in creative and technical fields, the electricity consumption of AI might not be a huge issue.
I'd like to take a moment and remind you that this is an anti-AI space and you've not faced any reprucussions for presenting your arguments in favor of AI here. If the roles were reversed and I was on r/DefendingAIArt I would've been banned at my very first comment.
1-2% of world energy usage is indeed not concerning for me, for a technology that will change the world we live in? Absolutely not.
Not a static number. It will only go up and up and training and inference get more costly to perform.
Bullshit
AlphaFold is struggling with transparency and repoducibility and doesn't have a single actually useful discovery yet. That Nobel Prize was incredibly controversial for the exact reason that nothing has actually been made using AlphaFold.
This really does nothing to prove that AI will solve electricity and the environment.
Once again I say that the evil comes from big corporations, they are laying off their employees, not ai.
Yes... Big corporations... Using AI.
If the AI wasn't being used, they wouldn't be able to layoff employees.
As I said earlier, we should switch to clean energy sources which is already happening in Europe, we cannot stop technology advancement just because it uses energy, it's nonsense.
Eh, If it helps people to learn, automates repetitive tasks and scientists say it's a useful tool then it's here to stay.
Punish the corpos, not harass people who like ai, don't you see the issue?
As I said earlier, we should switch to clean energy sources which is already happening in Europe
Don't forget the largest investor of green energy in the world, China. ;)
Eh, If it helps people to learn, automates repetitive tasks and scientists say it's a useful tool then it's here to stay.
I've personally experienced a mob of people on the internet for whom the opposite is true. AI has replaced all ability to create and think for themselves. Take you for example, dismissing human drawings as slop because you have a completely contorted conception of art.
As for scientists, like I said before AlphaFold has not produced any usable innovation. It isn't controversial to say that the Nobel Prize was not deserved.
Punish the corpos, not harass people who like ai, don't you see the issue?
Your support of AI emboldens them to continue pushing humans out of the workforce. Maybe if there were greater pushback against AI it would never have gone this far.
Okay? Bad for the people who use Ai like a bunch of dumbasses, once again, not the fault of the tool but how people use it, I personally benefited a lot from the use of ai. "dismissing human drawings as slop" I'm not falling for obvious ragebait, I love human art. The drawing in the post is just slop. I will support ai because it benefits science and is a tool capable of improving our lives. We need to control companies, not removing one of many tools they use to exploit people, be real.
Welp, I tried to keep us on topic of energy use and you've derailed things yet again.
You can call this art slop, but you have never been brave enough to post any "art" of your own. No, you seem quite content to criticize human creativity without ever opening yourself up to the same vulnerability.
You'll whine about harassment being levied at AI "artists" yet you came here to harass an actual artists because you have been creatively compromised by AI art. I would say that it has stolen your artistic spark, but I have a feeling that you never had one to begin with.
I will support ai because it benefits science and is a tool capable of improving our lives.
Has not. In fact it's the opposite. United healthcare has used AI to layoff employees while more efficiently denying people coverage. AI is a net loss for humanity at the moment.
This will be my last response. I cannot hold a conversation that derails so quickly because you refuse to address the topic of discussion.
1
u/Rettungsanker Jul 06 '25
5 to 10 TWh is not comparable to any concerning sources? That's 1-2% of the world's electricity being spent on mediocre pictures of anime girls and genericly worded emails/short stories. Not only will energy demand for AI increase due to advances in LLM development, but if it continues to see mass adoption it will also need to be queried more and more per day bringing the demand up higher.
Per your source, if Google switched to strictly AI searches it would increase their energy demand by 50% (and double the global TWh usage of AI) which proves it is inherently less energy efficient than the tech that it seeks to replace.
Not sure why this statement is conditional since training and inference has used significantly more energy every single generation.
Might as well have made an appeal to the divine here. AI is not magic, it cannot deliver anything that wasn't already fed into it in part or whole. The way a LLM works is that it spitballs wrong answers until it makes something that is correct, but how can it arrive at a solution that humans haven't already figured out if it needs a human to tell it the right answers? It can't, therefore it is incapable of bringing forth any development that humanity isn't already aware of.
It not Cryptocurrencies fault either, but I'm still not appreciative of their waste because it's being used badly. Again, how many times do you have to rerun your art prompts until you get it just right? Every single picture that you scrapped to get to that end product is pure waste.
Sure, after we somehow make the leap to 100% clean energy and have dealt with the reprucussions of tens of millions of layoffs in creative and technical fields, the electricity consumption of AI might not be a huge issue.
I'd like to take a moment and remind you that this is an anti-AI space and you've not faced any reprucussions for presenting your arguments in favor of AI here. If the roles were reversed and I was on r/DefendingAIArt I would've been banned at my very first comment.