Comment by hambes

Whether you like it or not, we are burning a lot of electricity on datacenters. That is a fact. And energy consumption is likely going to significantly increase in the near future. If we can reduce that energy usage, that is a good thing and a big improvement.

I do not think I even understand your complaint. Different people can work on different problems. We do not have to pick only one.

> My improvement is more important than yours.

We can just do both.

LLMs and other IT applications have the distinct advantage that they require no other raw materials as input, aside from initial setup, extension, and maintenance. Under these conditions the requirements essentially boil down to real estate and high bandwidth internet connections. Also, demand for AI is currently so high that the solution can be scaled up far enough to be viable.

All the other concerns require more subtle approaches because human requirements are much more messy.

I don’t think that’s a great description of what’s going on here. I think there are two things:

1. The actual thing the authors spend a lot of time thinking about seems to be more generally how to make good use of solar power for things that people find valuable – synthetic fuels desalination, etc – and the implications of the sun only shining some of the time – maybe you don’t want to pay more for more efficient systems as then you want steady power which is more expensive.

2. I think the blog post is a bit of a response to lots of public discussion about AI data centres. IMO seems better to see what someone who thinks a lot about energy has to say than eg, a government suggestion that you delete old pictures to reduce water consumption.

Sometimes (often) solving the problem is the most fun part, regardless of how it’s used.

The scale of AI energy consumption is quite unique from what I heard, and there’s a lot of money flowing into that direction. So that seems to me a decent reason to think about that.

I haven’t heard yet that food production is constrained by these kind of things.

It appears to make that you’re just taking a cheap jab at AI.

Well, I've never seen anything written by AI evangelists that doesn't sound like it was written in day three of an adderall binge. This essay is no different.

I share the reaction but I'm also aware how easy is it to inventivize (aka subsidize) ineffective old processes in the name of "productive" priorities. The problem is not LLM/DC, the problem is food production, transport and communications are not sexy in a "post-scarcity" (entitled/distracted) societies. People take too many things for granted

Tell that to the 1000-watt space heater in the corner that i tasked with upscaling some old home movies! Four GPUs worked very hard all night to get footage of my first dog up to 1080p. My living room is a little warm this morning.

>instead of something useful, like food production, communication, transport or any other way of satisfying actual human material needs. what weird priorities.

You realize that even pre-AI, that this complaint would still hold for most of tech? Adtech, enterprise SaaS, and B2C apps are hardly "actual human material needs". Even excluding tech, the next lucrative sector would be banking, and same complaint would be applicable. In other words, this is a decades (centuries?) old complaint, repackaged for the current thing.

the saying goes something like: the brightest minds in the world are getting together to figure out how to deliver more ads

if anything we are producing too much food

and what communications you find lacking?