[RE]

The private hands seem to be a problem.

Private or Public, it consumes too much power.

RE

[K-Dog]

The private hands seem to be a problem.

Private or Public, it consumes too much power.

RE

The public forced by common ownership to deal with reality could vote to limit profligate use to University Research.  All you get from private is chaos.

Could does not mean would, but it would be POSSIBLE.  With private it is impossible.

[RE]

Start counting the job losses.

Might be a good time to break some looms.



https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/20/business/ai-jobs-workers-replacing/index.html

RE

[RE]

"We want data centers, but it can't be the Wild Wild West of data centers and crypto miners crashing our grid and turning the lights off."

"We" do?  Who is the we here?  Have they done a referendum asking people if they want a new Data Center in the neighborhood causing more frequent power blackouts and raising the rates on their electricity?  Everybody Knows we don't have enough power generation capacity to handle what the Billionaires have planned for us, but "we" want them so "we" have to pay for them.

And while big tech firms may be committed to using green energy, the Washington Post reports that, since they run on the same grid as typical power consumers, these data centers tend to eat up much of the renewable energy available, leaving power providers to source dirty energy to fill in gaps.

WHY do they run on the same grid?  Let them build their own fucking grid!  Put some solar panels on the fucking roof!  Power it with Green Hydrogen fuel cells!  Build a Fusion Reactor next door!

https://www.salon.com/2024/06/22/power-hungry-ai-boom-making-power-grids-dirtier-less-reliable/

RE

[RE]

You can see here why Capitalism makes reducing power consumption impossible.

Tech companies build a data center wherever there's a power company that says they can sell them juice.  Since the more juice they sell the more money they make, they all say, "Surre! Build it here!"

Once built, on those hot days they find they're short of juice, so they buy some from the grid.  Somebody somewhere fires up an old coal plant to make up the shortfall.

Regulations need to be put in place that require AI to have its own power supply independent of grid power.  Without that, the consumption will rise faster than renewables could power it.  True anyhow, but it would at least slow it down

https://cleantechnica.com/2024/06/24/weird-wacky-ways-of-powering-data-centers-are-under-consideration/

RE

[RE]

The tech sector's build out of data centers to support AI and the adoption of electric vehicles alone is expected to add 290 terawatt hours of electricity demand by the end of the decade, according to a report released by the consulting firm Rystad Energy this week.

Must...have...MOAR POWER!

Supplying the demand with reliable power is a matter of economic and national security, Womack said. Southern expects 80% of the demand through the end of the decade to be met by renewables, he said.

Which means that 20% more FF powered plants will be necessary as well, without retiring any of the currently running plants.  IOW, all of the added renewables does nothing to reduce carbon emissions at all, it just gets worse.

Opposite the banksters who see no solution to lack of affordable housing because of insufficient supply, the economistas tell us we must build terawatts of new power generation to feed the insatiable lust of billionaires for electricity.  Power for computers must be found...housing for the homeless cannot be.  The hypocrisy  of capitalists laid bare for all to see.  If they put half the investment they are making into data centers into affordable housing, the homeless crisis would be over inside of 5 years.

Still, not a single politician from any party including the minority parties has stood up to point this out and demand an immediate national affordable housing act.  Make a law that for every dollar Google spends on building data centers they have to match with a dollar spent on new housing.  All the housing and data center to be powered by the renewable energy plant they also have to finance.

Why is there nobody who will suggest this in any state assembly if not in CONgress?  Is there not 1 in the whole FSoA who can see the OBVIOUS?  Where is Captain Obvious when you need him?



https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/30/failure-to-meet-surging-energy-demand-will-jeopardize-economic-growth-utility-execs-warn.html

RE

[Knarf]

I read an article this morning about how much energy it takes to run the AI programs. I will give examples in the article that convinced me to start using Duck, Duck, Go instead. I can't take part in the tremendous carbon footprint it is having right now. Maybe sometime in the future if they can bring the footprint WAY DOWN, but for now I can't use it with a clear conscience.

Today data centers run 24/7 and most derive their energy from fossil fuels, although there are increasing efforts to use renewable energy resources. Because of the energy the world's data centers consume, they account for 2.5 to 3.7 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, exceeding even those of the aviation industry.
In 2021, global data center electricity use was about 0.9 to 1.3 percent of global electricity demand. One study estimated it could increase to 1.86 percent by 2030. As the capabilities and complexity of AI models rapidly increase over the next few years, their processing and energy consumption needs will too. One research company predicted that by 2028, there will be a four-fold improvement in computing performance, and a 50-fold increase in processing workloads due to increased use, more demanding queries, and more sophisticated models with many more parameters. It's estimated that the energy consumption of data centers on the European continent will grow 28 percent by 2030.
In 2019, University of Massachusetts Amherst researchers trained several large language models and found that training a single AI model can emit over 626,000 pounds of CO2, equivalent to the emissions of five cars over their lifetimes.

A more recent study reported that training GPT-3 with 175 billion parameters consumed 1287 MWh of electricity, and resulted in carbon emissions of 502 metric tons of carbon, equivalent to driving 112 gasoline powered cars for a year.
Once models are deployed, inference—the mode where the AI makes predictions about new data and responds to queries—may consume even more energy than training. Google estimated that of the energy used in AI for training and inference, 60 percent goes towards inference, and 40 percent for training. GPT-3's daily carbon footprint was been estimated to be equivalent to 50 pounds of CO2 or 8.4 tons of CO2 in a year.

Inference energy consumption is high because while training is usually done multiple times to keep models current and optimized, inference is used many many times to serve millions of users. Two months after its launch, ChatGPT had 100 million active users. Instead of employing existing web searches that rely on smaller AI models, many people are eager to use AI for everything, but a single request in ChatGPT can consume 100 times more energy than one Google search, according to one tech expert.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/06/09/ais-growing-carbon-footprint/

[RE]

Will be interesting to see how the court rules on this one.  Will Bezos get a free ride on the backs of the residential customers?  Place your bets here.

https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/03/utility_firms_launch_complaint/

RE

[Knarf]

Good catch. The energy wars will really get going now. Climate disasters plus, data centers are going to be fighting for energy. Scarcity in so many sectors now will also bring things to a boil. Fun times.

[RE]

Power companies love AI.  Not too good for J6P though.

"Expect lower reliability and higher costs for consumers, while energy producers might make more money on the supply side by producing less energy but being paid to exist," he said.

The ultimate TBTF company!

On the plus side, you'll be able to complain to dead movie stars about your electric bill on the phone.

https://www.investors.com/news/artificial-intelligence-ai-data-centers-demand-nuclear-energy/?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAqEAgAKgcICjDOm4YLMJD1gwMw5ZOJAw&utm_content=rundown&gaa_at=la&gaa_n=AWsEHT6Zc83B-2qbHQo3Qp71Q5tNBqyxEBq9L2urMtey1ZHe0BxQQkiK41qjZ4xtWTnLA_O2HzOsa2tC3xBF&gaa_ts=6692b635&gaa_sig=kVbCY4qa1iCCj4X-DCVFx5TN1pinFUX4s8VxpxwlstFPmuW815EWPmE_f6W66BnOMHeIh9Z0Av27hf5wGSPhVg%3D%3D

RE

[Surly1]

Billionaires want AI, they just don't wanna pay for all the juice it takes to run the computers.  Somebody else should take the risk.

Who is out there demanding we have AI Data Centers?  Just tell the Billionaires, "You want this, you power it."  Has anybody seen any demonstrable improvement in their life from AI?  Most of the consequences so far seem to have been bad rather than good.  Deep Fakes and lost jobs for instance.

I see no pressing need for AI, and I certainly can't see why taxpayers would want to foot the bill.  Electric companies who might profit from it might want t, but they're already way behind on being able to supply power, so why do they want another headache?

https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/energy-power-supply/big-tech-wants-nuclear-power-but-doesn-t-see-role-as-investor

RE

Telling billionaires to go build their own has worked so well in building municipal stadiums, hasn't it? New York State has committed to funding $600 million of the $1.4 billion stadium project in Buffalo, with the NFL and the Bills investing $550 million and Erie County $250 million. The new stadium will be owned by the state rather than the county, as is currently the case.
Framed a different way, taxpayers will pay $850 million of the construction cost (with $600 million coming from New York State and $250 million coming from Erie County). With the State of New York also paying for all maintenance and repair costs once the stadium opens. Always good to be a billionaire. The first rule of being a billionaire is never put your own capital at risk.
Expect much the same with nukes for AI.

[Surly1]

Texas Leaders Worry That Bitcoin Mines Threaten to Crash the State Power Grid

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/10072024/texas-bitcoin-mining-threatens-power-grid/

[RE]

Love this quote    :

When I used to give career advice to my MBAs, I joked that going into tech is like becoming a stripper—you make a lot when you're young, but it goes down fast. Even today you can find former senior programmers driving an Uber or mowing lawns, aged out of a fast-changing industry.

There's a half million people whose  Amerikan Dream has become a nightmare.  Those are folks with 6 figure incomes and hefty mortgages which won't get paid on a salary stacking the shelves at Harbor Freight.

Irony is it's those same programmers who wrote the code behind AI.  They coded themselves right out of a job.

Big Tech Cuts Half a Million Jobs, Blames AI

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/07/24/big-teach-cuts-half-a-million-jobs-blames-ai/

RE

[K-Dog]

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/07/24/big-teach-cuts-half-a-million-jobs-blames-ai/

Of course, AI has its own problems, including hallucinations that invent information and phenomena that don't exist. Google pulled an AI blunder after it assured users that cockroaches living in a penis is totally normal, indeed that's how they got their name.

This article is light on facts and is presenting speculation as data.  I quote this single paragraph to show the contradiction, and other problems with AI were cited.  It makes it look like the author is vetting 'facts' the author actually knows to be made up.  The author admits AI has problems.  The truth is, at least for this year.  Is that only domain experts can use AI.  Programmers can use it to write a better program.  Only programmers can ask the right questions to refine results, and results have to be refined up the ying-yang.  Only a doctor can use AI to properly diagnose a disease.  Only a domain expert can tell if results are bullshit or not.  Currently AI generates more bullshit than a bull.

Regarding code.  AI can now teach anyone to program.  All they have to do is spend the time to learn.  Ask it questions and practice.

In other words.  Nothing has changed.  AI replaced the book.  You can now do proper book lernin without a book if you have the money to pay for AI, and you have a computer.  Free AI only gets you so far before your 'limit' is up.

If you want to know why tech companies have cut jobs, cutting jobs happens to be a FEATURE of capitalism.  It is ALWAYS done where it can be done to maintain the army of unemployed and increase PROFITS.  Maintaining an unemployed army is essential for profits.  Capitalism fails without it.  For real.

This article was written to hook you by fear.

* A new user can easily get an uncooperative AI session to take far longer to give results than if the user did the work themselves. If useful results are produced at all.  A new user will want to tell AI to  fuck itself in frustration.  And that is a total waste of time.  And hard on the keyboard.

[RE]

If you want to know why tech companies have cut jobs, cutting jobs happens to be a FEATURE of capitalism.  It is ALWAYS done where it can be done to maintain the army of unemployed and increase PROFITS.  Maintaining an unemployed army is essential for profits.  Capitalism fails without it.  For real.

Of course.  The point is though that AI enables them to fire the humans because the AI enables fewer code jockeys to write code faster.  So the department that once had 20  EEs writing subroutines now has 5 using ChatGPT getting it done.  The irony is that the same guys just fired probably wrote some of the code behind the AI.

RE