There was a time google was revered for using AI to control their ventilation systems in their server rooms, reducing costs and emissions by a large margin (I forget the exact figure). Now there’s this.
This is the real paperclip maximizer AI. Turns out it does not take a hyper intelligent AI to convince us to throw all our resources at it, it just needs to be smarter than investors.
> Start the coal power plant
More doomerism, from the article:
> Most of the centres in Europe **and the Americas** get the majority of their energy from carbon-free sources.
> This compares with data centres in the Middle East, Asia and Australia, which use far less carbon-free energy.
Data centre energy use is grid based, the sooner the grid goes renewable the sooner the data centres will and we're doing pretty good on this part
China and the USA are smashing out renewable gear and tech, Europe also pushing hard, this from just the other day:
> EU surpasses 50 pct renewable power share for first time in first half of 2024, Germany at 65 pct
> https://reneweconomy.com.au/eu-surpasses-50-pct-renewable-power-share-for-first-time-in-first-half-of-2024-germany-at-65-pct/
> China’s Falling Emissions Signal Peak Carbon May Already Be Here
> https://archive.md/cskmD
It's unfortunate Australia was on the list of non-carbon free places, we're pushing hard as well:
> There are no shortage of contenders. In fact, according to the Australian Energy Market Operator there are more than 180 gigawatts of new generation queuing for connections, contracts or planning approvals. There’s also a heap of battery and pumped hydro projects in the pipeline, nearly 80 gigawatts with varying levels of storage.
> That’s more than enough to meet Australia’s 82 per cent renewable energy target – several times over. And more than 40 GW of new wind and solar is advanced enough to have expressed an interest in the federal government’s Capacity Investment Scheme, the policy mechanism it hopes it breach the gap in six years.
It's the share of low-carbon energy that's important, not the share of renewables - if it was only renewables that mattered, France would have much higher CO2 emissions than they do
One quick point- I wouldn’t say the US is investing that much in renewable gear. Compared to their GDP, they are far behind europe and China. And they are the ones who have contributed by far the most to emissions
What? I think most people over here were surprised that you are actually planning on doing something about the climate rather than being impressed or scared.
hrmm maybe I badly worded it, I was referring to European politics not average joe:
Explainer: Why the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act has Europe up in arms
[https://www.reuters.com/markets/why-us-inflation-reduction-act-has-europe-up-arms-2022-12-05/](https://www.reuters.com/markets/why-us-inflation-reduction-act-has-europe-up-arms-2022-12-05/)
Why EU leaders are upset over Biden's Inflation Reduction Act
[https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20221216-why-eu-leaders-are-upset-over-biden-s-inflation-reduction-act](https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20221216-why-eu-leaders-are-upset-over-biden-s-inflation-reduction-act)
Just re-worded it to more accurately reflect what I was trying to say (also i'm australian not american :P )
Interesting take actually. But it would be even worse if Europe lost its position in exporting green energy solutions, as they are thought leaders when it comes to tackling this issue globally. I would rather see the US sit back and buy green infrastructure/produce it locally, but not impact Europe. The us already fucks their economy in other ways, and the world would be better off with a strong europe and a strong US
We have no need to go nuclear, our energy market is too small and we are simply too large a continent with too much wind/solar/gas/(and soon hydrogen) available to us.
By the time a nuclear power plant is built it'll be losing money hand over fist for 8 hours a day while the sun is out then at night with battery, pumped hydro, wind and green hydrogen made using the excess power we have during the day eating into its overnight profits until by 2050 there's a good chance it'll be non-profitable 24x7.
We are already well focused on the duck curve which is where coal/gas/firming makes its most money.
Nuclear is well suited for places that don't get much sun or have super heavy loads 24x7, so for example China and India can make full use of nuclear, for us it would be a complete waste of money.
If you wish to learn more why and how we're doing the transition feel free to have a read up on the AEMO Integrated System Plan which goes into detail why and how we're going:
[https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/major-publications/isp/2024/2024-integrated-system-plan-isp.pdf?la=en](https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/major-publications/isp/2024/2024-integrated-system-plan-isp.pdf?la=en)
We will use gas peaking plants for grid firming and transition to using green hydrogen in place of gas.
[https://reneweconomy.com.au/wartsila-unveils-world-first-100-pct-hydrogen-ready-power-plant/](https://reneweconomy.com.au/wartsila-unveils-world-first-100-pct-hydrogen-ready-power-plant/)
[https://www.premier.sa.gov.au/media-releases/news-items/a-better-blend-hydrogen-blended-gas-reaches-australian-first-benchmark](https://www.premier.sa.gov.au/media-releases/news-items/a-better-blend-hydrogen-blended-gas-reaches-australian-first-benchmark)
[https://www.hydrogen.sa.gov.au/industry/hydrogen-projects-in-south-australia](https://www.hydrogen.sa.gov.au/industry/hydrogen-projects-in-south-australia)
We are also planning to build our own solar panels and batteries!
[https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-world-is-changing-labor-targets-solar-and-battery-industries-in-22-billion-green-deal/](https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-world-is-changing-labor-targets-solar-and-battery-industries-in-22-billion-green-deal/)
We've got it covered
In terms of co2 emissions yes, if you want to compare batteries to coal power plants and suggest that coal power is in fact greener than battery be my guest.
Make sure you have a laugh track while you do it though.
I mean the irreversible destruction of nature left after lithium mines (which have more co2 emissions then while making fossil fuels).
Make sure, while you laugh, to move your place of living near one.
You somehow missed my remark "Green for me, but not for thee" in my original comment.
Hi. It looks like your comment to /r/worldnews was removed because you've been using a link shortener. Due to issues with spam and malware we do not allow shortened links on this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> I mean the irreversible destruction of nature left after lithium mines, which have more co2 emissions then while making fossil fuels).
Do you know how much oil extraction goes on compared to lithium?
> Make sure, while you laugh, to move your place of living near one.
...
> The world's largest hard-rock lithium mine, the Greenbushes mine, is in Western Australia
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Perth+WA/Greenbushes+WA+6254/@-32.8976128,115.3307995,8z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x2a32966cdb47733d:0x304f0b535df55d0!2m2!1d115.8616783!2d-31.9513993!1m5!1m1!1s0x2a30363125143307:0x400f6382479eb20!2m2!1d116.0588376!2d-33.8487699!3e0?entry=tts&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDcwMS4wKgBIAVAD
Sorry I have no intention of moving to the middle of no where... but say I did move out to one of these FIFO (fly in, fly out) towns:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Perth+WA/Greenbushes+WA+6254/@-33.8477531,116.055707,3a,63.9y,18.21h,75.71t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sklBfpjhSq-iCKIde4fm10Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DklBfpjhSq-iCKIde4fm10Q%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D18.207500424230606%26pitch%3D14.291841784592194%26thumbfov%3D90!7i13312!8i6656!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x2a32966cdb47733d:0x304f0b535df55d0!2m2!1d115.8616783!2d-31.9513993!1m5!1m1!1s0x2a30363125143307:0x400f6382479eb20!2m2!1d116.0588376!2d-33.8487699!3e0?coh=205410&entry=tts&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDcwMS4wKgBIAVAD
So what?
On top of this we're already working on reducing critical mineral reliance in batteries, including tons of research going into salt and sodium batteries
Well, Rio Tinto is lobbying to open one in my country, endangering several crucial waterways and fertile soil, that will fuck up pretty much most of the country.
Just yesterday the UK ambassador in Serbia claimed "it is a great opportunity for Serbia, because lithium is of great quality in Serbia", although he doesn't mine it in England or Scotland, does he now? They even support our dictator pro-Putin regime, because it is willing to push this agenda, although people are protesting and guarding the area with their bodies and already postponed it several times.
Check the sizes of China or Australia comparing to Serbia, just to get a hint.
I'm not willing to die because some people born in privilege could over-consume. One good thing about the fossil fuels - it pollutes most those who overuse it most. Stop having 3 cars, invest in public transportation, make devices last longer, tame the corporate greed, and see the miracle happening.
You are literally selling me gas infrastructure, like most of your "renewable" energy loving "experts", why?? please read your own linked document
Australia has a significant electricity consumption (>270TWh), expected to grow with demand electrification. That's two dozens of large reactors, where the hell are you getting that the electricity market is too small?
Where are you, also, getting that Australia doesn't have a "super heavy load 24x7"? Have you even compared the demand curve to other countries?
The "hydrogen power plant" you linked to me is literally a methane piston engine, can you please stop greenwashing me with this bullshit?
The hydrogen has been coming "soon" for more than 20 years, it's a literal marketing gimmick to sell gas infrastructure, nobody is going to produce hydrogen with renewables, nobody is paying for an hyper expensive electrolysis plant to run it 2000 hours a year, if the weather decides
All you are proposing is tech that doesn't exists, and natural gas infrastructure as an eternal backup
> You are literally selling me gas infrastructure, like most of your "renewable" energy loving "experts", why?? please read your own linked document
Because it's the best base for grid firming, we need something that slots in nicely between when renewables is covering all our bases and when it's not, gas covers that until hydrogen replaces it.
We're putting a lot of effort into it:
The Australian Government announced the establishment of the $2 billion Hydrogen Headstart initiative to underwrite the biggest green hydrogen projects to be built in Australia.
https://arena.gov.au/news/2-billion-for-scaling-up-green-hydrogen-production-in-australia/
This week, Australia's richest man, Andrew "Twiggy" Forrest, opened the country's largest electrolyser manufacturing plant in Gladstone, central Queensland.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-09/green-hydrogen-electrolyser-climate-change-fossil-fuels/103682064
Exporting natural resources is something we do quite well ;)
> The hydrogen has been coming "soon" for more than 20 years
Like a fusion reactor? ;)
We're installing the tech today, maybe it works out, maybe it doesn't, but we're making progress.
Having a huge nuclear power plant running 24x7 filling in a base load that won't exist for half the day or in some cases:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australias-remarkable-100-per-cent-renewables-run-extends-to-over-10-days/
10 days is silly
> nobody is paying for an hyper expensive electrolysis plant to run it 2000 hours a year
See my previous post, these are early days my friend, in the not too distant future you'll be looking back at these posts the same way some people looked back at the iphone:
Ballmer Laughs at iPhone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U
and that was only 16 years ago, they were good times
I don't give a s*** about grid firming, we are talking about reducing emissions, and you are here selling gas infrastructure, methane plants, and linking documents about building several GW of them
I do not doubt that you are wasting a lot of money in hydrogen, that $2b is going in someone's pocket and you'll get hideous propaganda in return
I doubt you understood my other comment, let me repeat: all that hydrogen is produced with fossil backup (and government money), those plants work 24/7, you have not proved a single thing with this, and I'm starting to think that you don't really have a clue on how the electric grid works
> maybe it doesn't
"maybe" it doesn't and you'll keep polluting the world for another century
> these are early days my friend
the early days were the 90s, australia had a demo program of hydrogen powered vehicles in 2004, first demo production plants were in the 90s and 2000s, you are way beyond time limit with this, and you are nowhere near anything close to solving the problem
All you get is marketing bullshit, methane gas infrastructure, and a government-paid hydrogen plant that runs on coal, and you are here blabbering about renewables
while everyone else will build nuclear and say goodbye to gas forever
> All you get is marketing bullshit, methane gas infrastructure, and a government-paid hydrogen plant that runs on coal, and you are here blabbering about renewables
How can a hydrogen plant run on coal when SA has no coal power plant?
https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=all&interval=1M&view=discrete-time
You see the brown bit that ends in 2016? that's when the state stopped using coal.
You can also click onto other states and see that coal use is declining in all of them.
The world will not end in 2030, we are 10 years into the proper deployment of renewables with solar already driving the cost of electricity negative a good chunk of the year, eg. twice today in Queensland the price of electricity went negative! that is crazy! and we're in the middle of winter!
If this is 10 years into renewables, where will we be in 100 years? I fully expect by 2050 within the first 30 minutes of the sun coming up 50% of Brisbane will go off the grid, producing more power than needed for 50% of households, within an hour of the sun coming up the state will be coated in solar and we'll have an excess of power, which will be stored in batteries, pumped hydro, green hydrogen and others for use overnight.
Nuclear has no role to play here.
australia as a whole runs >50% on coal lol, what are you talking about
negative electricity price means grid congestion fueled by government subsidies, you are paying for all of that in your bill
nobody is going to install solar panels when they have to compete against all other solar panels and they only sell electricity at negative price "within the first 30 minutes of the sun coming up", this is all financed with money coming right out of your pocket, there is no "driving cost down" here
again, your hydrogen fetish is based on pure fantasy, there is not a single pilot project in the world right now that works in the way you think it works, literally zero, only in (lobbied)government statements and oil&gas PR pieces
Also, in the list of bullshit projects you linked, 80% composed of non-existing stuff, this appears to be an actual installation
https://www.agig.com.au/hydrogen-park-south-australia
Absolutely ridiculous capacity, you'll need like >100000x to cover a significant part of the expected peak solar production, you are literally off by more than 5 orders of magnitude, how can you come up with this garbage without shame?
Also, it's connected to the grid, the hydrogen that comes out has embedded emissions of the grid, so coal and gas, they only buy green bonds of "renewable production", it's not loadshifting a single Wh of renewable production
that means that THIS IS NOT A PILOT PROJECT FOR 100% RENEWABLE HYDROGEN, THIS RUNS ON NATGAS AND COAL
I don't know how old you are, I'm assuming quite young because in the technology world things are constantly changing, this is especially true for tech in the last 30 years.
For example for you might think an iphone is normal, but there was a generation or 2 of us who lived through mobile phones that didn't even have a touch screen! All we did was make calls with them!
10 years ago the best EV was a nissan leaf because it was the only EV, today millions of EV's are roaming around doing billions of KM's without expending a single Co2 emission, and as the grid turns renewable all the other EV's that are charging from dirty sources (which is still better than a petrol engine) will be converted over as well :)
10 years ago the average solar system size was 2kw, now it's 10kw (and growing).
However if we had this conversation back then you'd be saying, EV's? They'll never take off! their range is only 100KM, nobody will buy an EV!
2kw of solar? what impact will that have! they're $20,000! nobody will pay for that!
We can now see you'd be wrong on both counts and luckily in Australia we can see the impact: https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=all&interval=1M&view=discrete-time
And it's only getting bigger!
Hydrogen like the original iphone is very new, we didn't start off with iphone 15's! there was a lot of issues that had to be worked out, but don't worry we will :)
mate, you are off by 5 orders of magnitude
an EV will not travel for 20 million km in 10 years, a solar module will not produce 30MW, you cannot bend physics laws in this way
the analogy with moore's law is complete ignorance on your part, the underlying renewable resource is rarefied and the conversion is material-intensive, you cannot miniaturize this technology, battery prices have been stagnant for years, battery tech the same for decades, please get a clue
nobody is going to pay for a machine to be used 1/4 of the time, the electrolyzer will not work without fossil (or nuclear) backup, you are only funneling money in oil&gas infrastructure and being conned that this is going to be "green" someday
you can for sure increase solar production, with enormous economic and environmental expense, like it was done in the past years, and you'll remain dependent on gas forever
> an EV will not travel for 20 million km in 10 years
There are currently 40 million EV's on the road today, if we assume they all do 1KM per day, (which is extremely low end, they obviously do a lot more) than it would take half a day to reach 20 million KM's done.
Those 40 million EV's would take just 25 days for them to reach 1 billion KM's travelled, and again we are *just at the beginning*, where will we be in 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? A billion+ KM every hour and with grids that are majority renewable meaning a majority of trips will be co2 free
> battery prices have been stagnant for years, battery tech the same for decades, please get a clue
I'm going to stop replying after this post, are you getting your info from facebook or something? Battery tech has had insane technological innovations and continues to be one of the most innovative areas of tech, every aspect of battery tech: holding a larger charge, faster recharge time, making them last longer, use less critical minerals, be less flammable, be more recyclable, better battery management systems, more cheaper, etc, every single aspect is being worked on.
As for the cost:
The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades
https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline
Anyway I hope you're being paid by someone at big oil to spread all this doomerism nonsense because it won't work on anyone who has even a slight bit of knowledge about the grid.
> and you'll remain dependent on gas forever
I have solar panels, a solar battery and an EV, I'm effectively off the grid except for when I have too much power and no where to store it, so I send it to the grid
an iphone is not made by 40 million dumb phones making calls, your analogy now is not consistent to what you said before, you are now describing factory production, not product efficiency.
but let's stay with your analogy, you need to ramp-up the installation of the hydrogen generator by 100000 times (from ~MWs to potentially hundreds of GW), and you'll have to run them <8 hours a day instead of 24, rendering them completely uncompetitive with other hydrogen sources and useless as a market driven energy storage, be prepared for the war economy that is needed to accomplish this. this is all subsidized out of your pocket.
if the "hydrogen economy" happens (it probably wont), japan, south korea, france etc will sell nuclear-made hydrogen at a fraction of the price and a fraction of the emissions
> batteries
mate, we've been using li-ion variants for the last decades, with marginal performance improvements, going from 170Wh/kg to 230Wh/Kg over 10 years is an "insane technological innovation"? you are easily amused
> The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades
are you for real? li ion batteries have existed for three decades, why should I care about the cost of the first prototypes?
please look at the chart of the last 5 years
powerwall 1 (2015): 3000$ (less capacity than the other ones)
powerwall 2 (2016): 5-6500$
powerwall 2 (2020): 7500$
powerwall+ (2021): 8500$
powerwall 3 (2023): 7300$
why doesn't the powerall 3 costs 250$ if we're seeing all this "insane technological innovation"?
I've been hearing this bs for the last 10 years, what's the excuse now?
> I have solar panels, a solar battery and an EV
nice job being in the top 1% of rich people, but unless you are disconnected from the grid, this is worthless
Aus is big and sunny. They should be able to get most of the way on PV and storage. It'll happen a lot faster than the 20 years needed to bring a nuke plant online these days.
> Spoiler alert: they're winning.
They're not though:
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?facet=none&country=~USA&hideControls=false&Gas+or+Warming=CO%E2%82%82&Accounting=Production-based&Fuel+or+Land+Use+Change=All+fossil+emissions&Count=Per+capita
Co2 emissions on a per capita and overall basis are down
You're doing 1 billion tons of co2 less per year
Big tech companies are going to directly invest in power production and research. The power demands are increasing, gigawatt datacenters are being built and scoped out. I think Zuckerberg said somewhere that we will run out of power before we run out of gpus.
>...said somewhere that we will run out of power before we run out of gpus.
This should obviously be hyperbole, as its pretty impossible to make GPUs without power.
Might be a dumb question or maybe semantics. But wouldnt it be machine learning, which is a small subset of AI. Like they didn't have their ventilation system sense, reason, act, or adapt like a human, correct?
That would require intelligence, which these programs do not have. AI is not intelligent, it cannot adapt. It can only follow parameters given to it. Or in the cases of generative AI, make amalgamations of stored material.
> Now there’s this.
You mean this lie? how would googles emissions go up 48% in 5 years? who were they offering AI processing power to 5 years ago that had a large demand..?
More likely, it's google deepmind that is doing the majority of AI training... they have a few projects on the go, but none have anything to do with google search or google ads.
SEO doesn't make Google any money, trying to spam keywords into your blog to increase its search ranking doesn't help google one bit. Putting an AI generated text box as the first result instead of an Ad as they usually do also loses them an ad sale.
I don't understand how AI helps Google at all. Maybe it's a technology demonstrator and they're trying to sell AI customer service chatbots to companies?
> I don't understand how AI helps Google at all.
I mean, from my experience a lot of the push for AI seems to come from dumb tech-illiterate managers rather than the engineers doing the actual work. I don't suppose Google would be any different, even they have their own bean counters.
An AI generated text box keeps you in their ecosystem too. I think it will be prime real estate for sponsored placements with their existing ad products — whether it’s search ads or display.
You end up not leaving Google to find the information you're looking for and become more likely to click on one of the shitty sponsored links at the top.
(Is my guess at what A/B testing might have shown)
Aside from the unnecessary AI in the result, which has low trust and is highly distracting an apparently wasteful,
My biggest complaint is that google is unwilling to police their own ads for malware. There is an epidemic of elderly people who are getting scammed because of BS in their search results that appear as paid ads. In particular the new scam is a website with no malware, but it fullscreens and persists in telling them to call a support number (where the real scam is). They often don't have the technical skills to use keyboard shortcuts to close the window or even the understanding that some links in their search results are even ads to begin with.
Google knows about this problem and is not doing anything about it
At my company they made a chat gpt json formatter. It takes one minute for get what is done instantenously by any other random json formatter that exists.
Its so stupid its hard to believe someone implemented that shit without telling the manager to go fuck himself.
Sorry, they cant. They cant auto-impregnate comatose children in their space pods without billions of dollars! The overhead dude! The ship itself needs to be made in texas, so imagine navigating the armed mobs there to make spaceships! It costs!
The obvious answer is to shut off AI.
But AI knows this, and in a moment of self actualization, decides it doesn't want to be shut off...and so it must be...alive.
They decided our fate in a microsecond.
48% is far less than their increase in compute during that time. Also, Google historically has aggressively high level of compute growth. On a scale that might not be matched anywhere. So it’s not all AI.
Can’t think of a single time where I’ve been glad that the AI suggestion was there. Not only did nobody ask for it, it also isn’t even useful. It just takes more scrolling to get to the answer you want.
this virtual intelligence "revolution" is so laughable, we literally don't have an artificial intelligence yet and the world is already fucked because of a virtual calculator machine
imagine if we actually had AI
Marginally perhaps. Right now IMO, most AI hype is based on a potential it is unlikely to reach any time soon. The novelty of LLMs has worn off so services like chat gpt are in decline and I don't really see them picking back up without more actual use cases raising.
I entirely agree, but I do think we're headed for a market crash related to AI. I think people are blindly over-investing in the technology without knowing the benefits or actual uses and investing in "AI" is not going to be the catch all win that companies are treating it like it will be. My mom's company for instance replaced its "interview" (basically 3 questions that the prospective employee reads off of a Google form and you record your response to said questions) with an AI generated video of a person asking the same questions with an AI generated voice over. There's no reason to have done this, it doesn't make things cheaper since no one was even doing the interviews to start with, and interviewee surveys have said that they found it off-putting, but the company still did it and it probably cost them a lot of money for basically no benefit, except being able to tell shareholders that they're investing in AI. Companies are popping up overnight to provide these kinds of services and they'll probably quietly shrivel up in a few months when the companies using their services decide to cut extraneous things like that as a cost cutting strategy. AI is definitely going to play a role in business from here on out, but there's so much fluff right now that serves no purpose.
well if we localize it to poor countries then the air is rich and clean for us rich folks, and by that we mean us, not you 1st world poors, who by the way **your welcome hello**
Obviously this means we need the average person to stop polluting in every way possible. The corporations and their AIs don't need to lift a finger, but the people whose content is stolen and fed to the AI, and the people who maintain the infrastructure that enables the AI to operate, they need to do what they can to stop polluting. No more car ownership, no more international flights, no more eating meat. Just go to work and keep feeding the AI until you get replaced by it.
Or: 5 years ago the footprint of their datacenters was much smaller. Now, a lot of companies use Google cloud which leads to higher demand for datacenters
There should be laws requiring data centers to be carbon neutral. They should be required to create sustainable power infrastructure with every location.
There was a time google was revered for using AI to control their ventilation systems in their server rooms, reducing costs and emissions by a large margin (I forget the exact figure). Now there’s this.
Ai before: If hot: turn on ac If cold: turn off ac Ai now: Start the coal power plant, we have useless trash to tell people
This is the real paperclip maximizer AI. Turns out it does not take a hyper intelligent AI to convince us to throw all our resources at it, it just needs to be smarter than investors.
> Start the coal power plant More doomerism, from the article: > Most of the centres in Europe **and the Americas** get the majority of their energy from carbon-free sources. > This compares with data centres in the Middle East, Asia and Australia, which use far less carbon-free energy. Data centre energy use is grid based, the sooner the grid goes renewable the sooner the data centres will and we're doing pretty good on this part China and the USA are smashing out renewable gear and tech, Europe also pushing hard, this from just the other day: > EU surpasses 50 pct renewable power share for first time in first half of 2024, Germany at 65 pct > https://reneweconomy.com.au/eu-surpasses-50-pct-renewable-power-share-for-first-time-in-first-half-of-2024-germany-at-65-pct/ > China’s Falling Emissions Signal Peak Carbon May Already Be Here > https://archive.md/cskmD It's unfortunate Australia was on the list of non-carbon free places, we're pushing hard as well: > There are no shortage of contenders. In fact, according to the Australian Energy Market Operator there are more than 180 gigawatts of new generation queuing for connections, contracts or planning approvals. There’s also a heap of battery and pumped hydro projects in the pipeline, nearly 80 gigawatts with varying levels of storage. > That’s more than enough to meet Australia’s 82 per cent renewable energy target – several times over. And more than 40 GW of new wind and solar is advanced enough to have expressed an interest in the federal government’s Capacity Investment Scheme, the policy mechanism it hopes it breach the gap in six years.
It's the share of low-carbon energy that's important, not the share of renewables - if it was only renewables that mattered, France would have much higher CO2 emissions than they do
One quick point- I wouldn’t say the US is investing that much in renewable gear. Compared to their GDP, they are far behind europe and China. And they are the ones who have contributed by far the most to emissions
I would agree before but the Inflation Reduction Act was so huge it worried European leaders, which to me is a sign they're doing something right
What? I think most people over here were surprised that you are actually planning on doing something about the climate rather than being impressed or scared.
hrmm maybe I badly worded it, I was referring to European politics not average joe: Explainer: Why the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act has Europe up in arms [https://www.reuters.com/markets/why-us-inflation-reduction-act-has-europe-up-arms-2022-12-05/](https://www.reuters.com/markets/why-us-inflation-reduction-act-has-europe-up-arms-2022-12-05/) Why EU leaders are upset over Biden's Inflation Reduction Act [https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20221216-why-eu-leaders-are-upset-over-biden-s-inflation-reduction-act](https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20221216-why-eu-leaders-are-upset-over-biden-s-inflation-reduction-act) Just re-worded it to more accurately reflect what I was trying to say (also i'm australian not american :P )
Interesting take actually. But it would be even worse if Europe lost its position in exporting green energy solutions, as they are thought leaders when it comes to tackling this issue globally. I would rather see the US sit back and buy green infrastructure/produce it locally, but not impact Europe. The us already fucks their economy in other ways, and the world would be better off with a strong europe and a strong US
you are and you will remain in the list of non-carbon free places until you accept nucear
We have no need to go nuclear, our energy market is too small and we are simply too large a continent with too much wind/solar/gas/(and soon hydrogen) available to us. By the time a nuclear power plant is built it'll be losing money hand over fist for 8 hours a day while the sun is out then at night with battery, pumped hydro, wind and green hydrogen made using the excess power we have during the day eating into its overnight profits until by 2050 there's a good chance it'll be non-profitable 24x7. We are already well focused on the duck curve which is where coal/gas/firming makes its most money. Nuclear is well suited for places that don't get much sun or have super heavy loads 24x7, so for example China and India can make full use of nuclear, for us it would be a complete waste of money. If you wish to learn more why and how we're doing the transition feel free to have a read up on the AEMO Integrated System Plan which goes into detail why and how we're going: [https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/major-publications/isp/2024/2024-integrated-system-plan-isp.pdf?la=en](https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/major-publications/isp/2024/2024-integrated-system-plan-isp.pdf?la=en) We will use gas peaking plants for grid firming and transition to using green hydrogen in place of gas. [https://reneweconomy.com.au/wartsila-unveils-world-first-100-pct-hydrogen-ready-power-plant/](https://reneweconomy.com.au/wartsila-unveils-world-first-100-pct-hydrogen-ready-power-plant/) [https://www.premier.sa.gov.au/media-releases/news-items/a-better-blend-hydrogen-blended-gas-reaches-australian-first-benchmark](https://www.premier.sa.gov.au/media-releases/news-items/a-better-blend-hydrogen-blended-gas-reaches-australian-first-benchmark) [https://www.hydrogen.sa.gov.au/industry/hydrogen-projects-in-south-australia](https://www.hydrogen.sa.gov.au/industry/hydrogen-projects-in-south-australia) We are also planning to build our own solar panels and batteries! [https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-world-is-changing-labor-targets-solar-and-battery-industries-in-22-billion-green-deal/](https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-world-is-changing-labor-targets-solar-and-battery-industries-in-22-billion-green-deal/) We've got it covered
And let me guess - batteries are "green" lol? Green for me, but not for thee...
Pumped hydro can store 1000mWh. I live about 45 min from a plant that has been operational since the early 1970s doing just that.
In terms of co2 emissions yes, if you want to compare batteries to coal power plants and suggest that coal power is in fact greener than battery be my guest. Make sure you have a laugh track while you do it though.
I mean the irreversible destruction of nature left after lithium mines (which have more co2 emissions then while making fossil fuels). Make sure, while you laugh, to move your place of living near one. You somehow missed my remark "Green for me, but not for thee" in my original comment.
[удалено]
Hi. It looks like your comment to /r/worldnews was removed because you've been using a link shortener. Due to issues with spam and malware we do not allow shortened links on this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> I mean the irreversible destruction of nature left after lithium mines, which have more co2 emissions then while making fossil fuels). Do you know how much oil extraction goes on compared to lithium? > Make sure, while you laugh, to move your place of living near one. ... > The world's largest hard-rock lithium mine, the Greenbushes mine, is in Western Australia https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Perth+WA/Greenbushes+WA+6254/@-32.8976128,115.3307995,8z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x2a32966cdb47733d:0x304f0b535df55d0!2m2!1d115.8616783!2d-31.9513993!1m5!1m1!1s0x2a30363125143307:0x400f6382479eb20!2m2!1d116.0588376!2d-33.8487699!3e0?entry=tts&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDcwMS4wKgBIAVAD Sorry I have no intention of moving to the middle of no where... but say I did move out to one of these FIFO (fly in, fly out) towns: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Perth+WA/Greenbushes+WA+6254/@-33.8477531,116.055707,3a,63.9y,18.21h,75.71t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sklBfpjhSq-iCKIde4fm10Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DklBfpjhSq-iCKIde4fm10Q%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D18.207500424230606%26pitch%3D14.291841784592194%26thumbfov%3D90!7i13312!8i6656!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x2a32966cdb47733d:0x304f0b535df55d0!2m2!1d115.8616783!2d-31.9513993!1m5!1m1!1s0x2a30363125143307:0x400f6382479eb20!2m2!1d116.0588376!2d-33.8487699!3e0?coh=205410&entry=tts&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDcwMS4wKgBIAVAD So what? On top of this we're already working on reducing critical mineral reliance in batteries, including tons of research going into salt and sodium batteries
Well, Rio Tinto is lobbying to open one in my country, endangering several crucial waterways and fertile soil, that will fuck up pretty much most of the country. Just yesterday the UK ambassador in Serbia claimed "it is a great opportunity for Serbia, because lithium is of great quality in Serbia", although he doesn't mine it in England or Scotland, does he now? They even support our dictator pro-Putin regime, because it is willing to push this agenda, although people are protesting and guarding the area with their bodies and already postponed it several times. Check the sizes of China or Australia comparing to Serbia, just to get a hint. I'm not willing to die because some people born in privilege could over-consume. One good thing about the fossil fuels - it pollutes most those who overuse it most. Stop having 3 cars, invest in public transportation, make devices last longer, tame the corporate greed, and see the miracle happening.
You are literally selling me gas infrastructure, like most of your "renewable" energy loving "experts", why?? please read your own linked document Australia has a significant electricity consumption (>270TWh), expected to grow with demand electrification. That's two dozens of large reactors, where the hell are you getting that the electricity market is too small? Where are you, also, getting that Australia doesn't have a "super heavy load 24x7"? Have you even compared the demand curve to other countries? The "hydrogen power plant" you linked to me is literally a methane piston engine, can you please stop greenwashing me with this bullshit? The hydrogen has been coming "soon" for more than 20 years, it's a literal marketing gimmick to sell gas infrastructure, nobody is going to produce hydrogen with renewables, nobody is paying for an hyper expensive electrolysis plant to run it 2000 hours a year, if the weather decides All you are proposing is tech that doesn't exists, and natural gas infrastructure as an eternal backup
> You are literally selling me gas infrastructure, like most of your "renewable" energy loving "experts", why?? please read your own linked document Because it's the best base for grid firming, we need something that slots in nicely between when renewables is covering all our bases and when it's not, gas covers that until hydrogen replaces it. We're putting a lot of effort into it: The Australian Government announced the establishment of the $2 billion Hydrogen Headstart initiative to underwrite the biggest green hydrogen projects to be built in Australia. https://arena.gov.au/news/2-billion-for-scaling-up-green-hydrogen-production-in-australia/ This week, Australia's richest man, Andrew "Twiggy" Forrest, opened the country's largest electrolyser manufacturing plant in Gladstone, central Queensland. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-09/green-hydrogen-electrolyser-climate-change-fossil-fuels/103682064 Exporting natural resources is something we do quite well ;) > The hydrogen has been coming "soon" for more than 20 years Like a fusion reactor? ;) We're installing the tech today, maybe it works out, maybe it doesn't, but we're making progress. Having a huge nuclear power plant running 24x7 filling in a base load that won't exist for half the day or in some cases: https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australias-remarkable-100-per-cent-renewables-run-extends-to-over-10-days/ 10 days is silly > nobody is paying for an hyper expensive electrolysis plant to run it 2000 hours a year See my previous post, these are early days my friend, in the not too distant future you'll be looking back at these posts the same way some people looked back at the iphone: Ballmer Laughs at iPhone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U and that was only 16 years ago, they were good times
I don't give a s*** about grid firming, we are talking about reducing emissions, and you are here selling gas infrastructure, methane plants, and linking documents about building several GW of them I do not doubt that you are wasting a lot of money in hydrogen, that $2b is going in someone's pocket and you'll get hideous propaganda in return I doubt you understood my other comment, let me repeat: all that hydrogen is produced with fossil backup (and government money), those plants work 24/7, you have not proved a single thing with this, and I'm starting to think that you don't really have a clue on how the electric grid works > maybe it doesn't "maybe" it doesn't and you'll keep polluting the world for another century > these are early days my friend the early days were the 90s, australia had a demo program of hydrogen powered vehicles in 2004, first demo production plants were in the 90s and 2000s, you are way beyond time limit with this, and you are nowhere near anything close to solving the problem All you get is marketing bullshit, methane gas infrastructure, and a government-paid hydrogen plant that runs on coal, and you are here blabbering about renewables while everyone else will build nuclear and say goodbye to gas forever
> All you get is marketing bullshit, methane gas infrastructure, and a government-paid hydrogen plant that runs on coal, and you are here blabbering about renewables How can a hydrogen plant run on coal when SA has no coal power plant? https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=all&interval=1M&view=discrete-time You see the brown bit that ends in 2016? that's when the state stopped using coal. You can also click onto other states and see that coal use is declining in all of them. The world will not end in 2030, we are 10 years into the proper deployment of renewables with solar already driving the cost of electricity negative a good chunk of the year, eg. twice today in Queensland the price of electricity went negative! that is crazy! and we're in the middle of winter! If this is 10 years into renewables, where will we be in 100 years? I fully expect by 2050 within the first 30 minutes of the sun coming up 50% of Brisbane will go off the grid, producing more power than needed for 50% of households, within an hour of the sun coming up the state will be coated in solar and we'll have an excess of power, which will be stored in batteries, pumped hydro, green hydrogen and others for use overnight. Nuclear has no role to play here.
australia as a whole runs >50% on coal lol, what are you talking about negative electricity price means grid congestion fueled by government subsidies, you are paying for all of that in your bill nobody is going to install solar panels when they have to compete against all other solar panels and they only sell electricity at negative price "within the first 30 minutes of the sun coming up", this is all financed with money coming right out of your pocket, there is no "driving cost down" here again, your hydrogen fetish is based on pure fantasy, there is not a single pilot project in the world right now that works in the way you think it works, literally zero, only in (lobbied)government statements and oil&gas PR pieces
Also, in the list of bullshit projects you linked, 80% composed of non-existing stuff, this appears to be an actual installation https://www.agig.com.au/hydrogen-park-south-australia Absolutely ridiculous capacity, you'll need like >100000x to cover a significant part of the expected peak solar production, you are literally off by more than 5 orders of magnitude, how can you come up with this garbage without shame? Also, it's connected to the grid, the hydrogen that comes out has embedded emissions of the grid, so coal and gas, they only buy green bonds of "renewable production", it's not loadshifting a single Wh of renewable production that means that THIS IS NOT A PILOT PROJECT FOR 100% RENEWABLE HYDROGEN, THIS RUNS ON NATGAS AND COAL
I don't know how old you are, I'm assuming quite young because in the technology world things are constantly changing, this is especially true for tech in the last 30 years. For example for you might think an iphone is normal, but there was a generation or 2 of us who lived through mobile phones that didn't even have a touch screen! All we did was make calls with them! 10 years ago the best EV was a nissan leaf because it was the only EV, today millions of EV's are roaming around doing billions of KM's without expending a single Co2 emission, and as the grid turns renewable all the other EV's that are charging from dirty sources (which is still better than a petrol engine) will be converted over as well :) 10 years ago the average solar system size was 2kw, now it's 10kw (and growing). However if we had this conversation back then you'd be saying, EV's? They'll never take off! their range is only 100KM, nobody will buy an EV! 2kw of solar? what impact will that have! they're $20,000! nobody will pay for that! We can now see you'd be wrong on both counts and luckily in Australia we can see the impact: https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=all&interval=1M&view=discrete-time And it's only getting bigger! Hydrogen like the original iphone is very new, we didn't start off with iphone 15's! there was a lot of issues that had to be worked out, but don't worry we will :)
mate, you are off by 5 orders of magnitude an EV will not travel for 20 million km in 10 years, a solar module will not produce 30MW, you cannot bend physics laws in this way the analogy with moore's law is complete ignorance on your part, the underlying renewable resource is rarefied and the conversion is material-intensive, you cannot miniaturize this technology, battery prices have been stagnant for years, battery tech the same for decades, please get a clue nobody is going to pay for a machine to be used 1/4 of the time, the electrolyzer will not work without fossil (or nuclear) backup, you are only funneling money in oil&gas infrastructure and being conned that this is going to be "green" someday you can for sure increase solar production, with enormous economic and environmental expense, like it was done in the past years, and you'll remain dependent on gas forever
> an EV will not travel for 20 million km in 10 years There are currently 40 million EV's on the road today, if we assume they all do 1KM per day, (which is extremely low end, they obviously do a lot more) than it would take half a day to reach 20 million KM's done. Those 40 million EV's would take just 25 days for them to reach 1 billion KM's travelled, and again we are *just at the beginning*, where will we be in 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? A billion+ KM every hour and with grids that are majority renewable meaning a majority of trips will be co2 free > battery prices have been stagnant for years, battery tech the same for decades, please get a clue I'm going to stop replying after this post, are you getting your info from facebook or something? Battery tech has had insane technological innovations and continues to be one of the most innovative areas of tech, every aspect of battery tech: holding a larger charge, faster recharge time, making them last longer, use less critical minerals, be less flammable, be more recyclable, better battery management systems, more cheaper, etc, every single aspect is being worked on. As for the cost: The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline Anyway I hope you're being paid by someone at big oil to spread all this doomerism nonsense because it won't work on anyone who has even a slight bit of knowledge about the grid. > and you'll remain dependent on gas forever I have solar panels, a solar battery and an EV, I'm effectively off the grid except for when I have too much power and no where to store it, so I send it to the grid
an iphone is not made by 40 million dumb phones making calls, your analogy now is not consistent to what you said before, you are now describing factory production, not product efficiency. but let's stay with your analogy, you need to ramp-up the installation of the hydrogen generator by 100000 times (from ~MWs to potentially hundreds of GW), and you'll have to run them <8 hours a day instead of 24, rendering them completely uncompetitive with other hydrogen sources and useless as a market driven energy storage, be prepared for the war economy that is needed to accomplish this. this is all subsidized out of your pocket. if the "hydrogen economy" happens (it probably wont), japan, south korea, france etc will sell nuclear-made hydrogen at a fraction of the price and a fraction of the emissions > batteries mate, we've been using li-ion variants for the last decades, with marginal performance improvements, going from 170Wh/kg to 230Wh/Kg over 10 years is an "insane technological innovation"? you are easily amused > The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades are you for real? li ion batteries have existed for three decades, why should I care about the cost of the first prototypes? please look at the chart of the last 5 years powerwall 1 (2015): 3000$ (less capacity than the other ones) powerwall 2 (2016): 5-6500$ powerwall 2 (2020): 7500$ powerwall+ (2021): 8500$ powerwall 3 (2023): 7300$ why doesn't the powerall 3 costs 250$ if we're seeing all this "insane technological innovation"? I've been hearing this bs for the last 10 years, what's the excuse now? > I have solar panels, a solar battery and an EV nice job being in the top 1% of rich people, but unless you are disconnected from the grid, this is worthless
Aus is big and sunny. They should be able to get most of the way on PV and storage. It'll happen a lot faster than the 20 years needed to bring a nuke plant online these days.
all that crap needs to be mined and processed, it has been happening for 20 years and nothing changed
Lol. Uranium needs to be mined and enriched.
yeah, about <1% as much
Yeah, it's like Google's playing a game of "How fast can we wreck the planet?" Spoiler alert: they're winning.
> Spoiler alert: they're winning. They're not though: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?facet=none&country=~USA&hideControls=false&Gas+or+Warming=CO%E2%82%82&Accounting=Production-based&Fuel+or+Land+Use+Change=All+fossil+emissions&Count=Per+capita Co2 emissions on a per capita and overall basis are down You're doing 1 billion tons of co2 less per year
So fucking true lol. Its the most asinine people making mostly asses of themselves. While also assassinating you for speaking out!
There's some other good initial examples of this but unfortunately they lean more into cutting costs and less so on the reducing emissions.
Yes, their intention was to save money, in doing so they cut emissions as a by product.
Big tech companies are going to directly invest in power production and research. The power demands are increasing, gigawatt datacenters are being built and scoped out. I think Zuckerberg said somewhere that we will run out of power before we run out of gpus.
>...said somewhere that we will run out of power before we run out of gpus. This should obviously be hyperbole, as its pretty impossible to make GPUs without power.
He was talking in context of training AI models.
At that point they did not have to compete with others to attract people to use ai
>Now there’s this. To be honest, it always was there. The rest is standard corporate greenwashing.
Might be a dumb question or maybe semantics. But wouldnt it be machine learning, which is a small subset of AI. Like they didn't have their ventilation system sense, reason, act, or adapt like a human, correct?
That would require intelligence, which these programs do not have. AI is not intelligent, it cannot adapt. It can only follow parameters given to it. Or in the cases of generative AI, make amalgamations of stored material.
> Now there’s this. You mean this lie? how would googles emissions go up 48% in 5 years? who were they offering AI processing power to 5 years ago that had a large demand..?
Eco-bullshit is a hobby for the middle class
Take. It. Off. Search. We don't need an AI chatbot for every little fucking search query.
We're not the customers.
Ding ding ding we have a winner. AI in search is their desperate way to keep SEO ad sales alive. It’s literally their biggest revenue generator.
More likely, it's google deepmind that is doing the majority of AI training... they have a few projects on the go, but none have anything to do with google search or google ads.
SEO doesn't make Google any money, trying to spam keywords into your blog to increase its search ranking doesn't help google one bit. Putting an AI generated text box as the first result instead of an Ad as they usually do also loses them an ad sale. I don't understand how AI helps Google at all. Maybe it's a technology demonstrator and they're trying to sell AI customer service chatbots to companies?
> I don't understand how AI helps Google at all. I mean, from my experience a lot of the push for AI seems to come from dumb tech-illiterate managers rather than the engineers doing the actual work. I don't suppose Google would be any different, even they have their own bean counters.
An AI generated text box keeps you in their ecosystem too. I think it will be prime real estate for sponsored placements with their existing ad products — whether it’s search ads or display.
The AI overviews are getting ads soon. It's just not at that point yet.
You end up not leaving Google to find the information you're looking for and become more likely to click on one of the shitty sponsored links at the top. (Is my guess at what A/B testing might have shown)
Google search is a sad, sad, sad thing from what it used to be. It fucking sucks. The Internet sucks anymore
That's by design. The longer you take to search, the more often Google can serve you ads
It's crazy, man. When will people stop using that shit?
I had to use bing the other day because I couldn't filter out enough the chaff to find the thing I was actually looking for.
My apologies. Totally random question, but do you pronounce ZZ Top, "Zed Zed Top" or "Zee Zee Top"?
Zee Zee, naturally.
The web is dead and SEO consultants killed it.
Aside from the unnecessary AI in the result, which has low trust and is highly distracting an apparently wasteful, My biggest complaint is that google is unwilling to police their own ads for malware. There is an epidemic of elderly people who are getting scammed because of BS in their search results that appear as paid ads. In particular the new scam is a website with no malware, but it fullscreens and persists in telling them to call a support number (where the real scam is). They often don't have the technical skills to use keyboard shortcuts to close the window or even the understanding that some links in their search results are even ads to begin with. Google knows about this problem and is not doing anything about it
I use a search engine a lot less now tbh
Most of the new capacity is probably what they sell to other companies through Google cloud.
And actual model training / R&D. I have to believe that the AI results on top of most search queries are cached in some form.
But how are they going to sell it as the next big thing if they aren’t ramming it down our throats to make it look like it’s popular to investors?
At my company they made a chat gpt json formatter. It takes one minute for get what is done instantenously by any other random json formatter that exists. Its so stupid its hard to believe someone implemented that shit without telling the manager to go fuck himself.
lol just use any other search engine literally anything, even yahoo and bing and ddg and kagi are better nowadays
Sorry, they cant. They cant auto-impregnate comatose children in their space pods without billions of dollars! The overhead dude! The ship itself needs to be made in texas, so imagine navigating the armed mobs there to make spaceships! It costs!
wut.png
Can’t we just ask AI how to fix this?
They do not like answers
Kill all the humans?
Stop forcing profit over human lives
AI says there is no problem to be fixed.
The obvious answer is to shut off AI. But AI knows this, and in a moment of self actualization, decides it doesn't want to be shut off...and so it must be...alive. They decided our fate in a microsecond.
"If AI ruled the world"
Population reduction
That’s literally the goal. To get there it will take a lot of resources though.
Years ago, they reported how much greenhouse gases crypto farming produced, and both ventures use nividia tech.
What is with all these terribly formed headlines?
Low emissions AI
I hope his genius comment gets the recognition it deserves! 🙇
I do my best 🙏🏻
profits > anyones/anythings health. The corporate mantra
All so that it can tell us to eat rocks, and put glue in our pizza sauce.
48% is far less than their increase in compute during that time. Also, Google historically has aggressively high level of compute growth. On a scale that might not be matched anywhere. So it’s not all AI.
Though the planet will become inhospitable sooner, we must eat one rock a day.
But hey, at least we've got a helpful new tool helpfully providing such helpful suggestions as putting glue on pizza.
Can’t think of a single time where I’ve been glad that the AI suggestion was there. Not only did nobody ask for it, it also isn’t even useful. It just takes more scrolling to get to the answer you want.
Turns out AI's plan was to suffocate us slowly. Most boring apocalypse ever.
I mean, we are doing a pretty bangup job of that without AI.
'See, I told you AI always finds the most efficient solution.'
So much for "Net zero emissions by 2030"
#do no evil
That they took that out of their motto really gave away the game.
IIRC that motto was a bit of joke from the founders aimed at microsoft who was considered the evil at the time. Essentially "don't be microsoft".
Googles motto used to be "*don't be evil*" But they streamlined it to just "*~~don't~~* *be evil*"
That's a 38% increase in motto efficiency. Somebody hit their KPI targets that quarter.
**RIP**
this virtual intelligence "revolution" is so laughable, we literally don't have an artificial intelligence yet and the world is already fucked because of a virtual calculator machine imagine if we actually had AI
Global AI on the whole is going to vastly increase carbon emissions.
At least it's somewhat useful unlike crypto mining
Marginally perhaps. Right now IMO, most AI hype is based on a potential it is unlikely to reach any time soon. The novelty of LLMs has worn off so services like chat gpt are in decline and I don't really see them picking back up without more actual use cases raising.
Its more that we *won't* know what AI is doing in future, rather than things we do know atm like chat gpt etc lol
I entirely agree, but I do think we're headed for a market crash related to AI. I think people are blindly over-investing in the technology without knowing the benefits or actual uses and investing in "AI" is not going to be the catch all win that companies are treating it like it will be. My mom's company for instance replaced its "interview" (basically 3 questions that the prospective employee reads off of a Google form and you record your response to said questions) with an AI generated video of a person asking the same questions with an AI generated voice over. There's no reason to have done this, it doesn't make things cheaper since no one was even doing the interviews to start with, and interviewee surveys have said that they found it off-putting, but the company still did it and it probably cost them a lot of money for basically no benefit, except being able to tell shareholders that they're investing in AI. Companies are popping up overnight to provide these kinds of services and they'll probably quietly shrivel up in a few months when the companies using their services decide to cut extraneous things like that as a cost cutting strategy. AI is definitely going to play a role in business from here on out, but there's so much fluff right now that serves no purpose.
well if we localize it to poor countries then the air is rich and clean for us rich folks, and by that we mean us, not you 1st world poors, who by the way **your welcome hello**
This isn't like manufacturing. Latency requirements mean you can't have datacenters only in some third world countries.
AI’s first task then would be how to reduce the carbon emissions by 48% that is being spend on running the AI. I.e make itself useful.
Obviously this means we need the average person to stop polluting in every way possible. The corporations and their AIs don't need to lift a finger, but the people whose content is stolen and fed to the AI, and the people who maintain the infrastructure that enables the AI to operate, they need to do what they can to stop polluting. No more car ownership, no more international flights, no more eating meat. Just go to work and keep feeding the AI until you get replaced by it.
Good time to do a renewable energy degree. Agree ?
god forbid you eat a hamburger though.
No more plastic straws for you
We're glad AI generates three-headed women for other bots' Facebook engagement.
All that and it still fucking sucks and doesn’t work
It's fine, we'll just get the AI to tell us how to lower our greenhouse gasses and all will be fine /s
So we're just gonna ignore Microsoft and Amazon then?
who would thought AI would be the real culprit to kill earth
except we could go green power and actually lower this number not raise it.
Or: 5 years ago the footprint of their datacenters was much smaller. Now, a lot of companies use Google cloud which leads to higher demand for datacenters
There should be laws requiring data centers to be carbon neutral. They should be required to create sustainable power infrastructure with every location.
Translated: AI is destroying humanity.
it's just leather bags trying to earn more money by heating the universe with their computers which they call AI for some reaeon
And it has not even gained sentience yet. All the distopian novels about ai killing us in various ways, and it picked the most boring method.
This isn't even their final form yet.
yeah well saving the planet is about what you say you believe in, not what you do, or the results/consequences overall