reminds me of some artist or another. when they first started out they burnt their works to survive. at their peak they could have fingerpainted on a napkin using human waste and it would have sold for more then most people earn in their entire lifetime. pretty common actually. at least before storing worthless drawings was cheap and easy. likely still does
Did not seam to count Ai images used and in actually displayed somewhere for use. After all AI images have errors way too frequently to just use one without looking before you put it on a wall or in your advertising content.
They don't. It's all bullshit to make/justify using insane amounts of energy to run Ai when it's not needed. They ignore the constant training of the AI, collecting and updating training data, running adversarial training and other stuff. Humans fully run on around a 100W of energy. That includes constantly running training, on visual, audio, spacial recognition, movement and other thigs. This also includes movement and other things we do naturally.
Also they seem to calculate the time it takes for a human artist to produce an image and then they calculate the amount of energy that such a human consumes throughout that time window. I might be wrong here, but if that’s what they’re doing it’s insane, because 1) the energy consumed by the human doesn’t go exclusively into producing that image, and 2) the human would consume that energy anyway, irrespective of producing images or not, and that human’s existence would be valuable irrespective of producing images or not.
I had a chess computer once, but it was much too good for me - so I ordered another one, now they play against each other, and I can do whatever I want.
If you figure out how to decode their moves, you might find the two have reached the level of conspiring, planing to take over the entire world turning it into a paper clip factory.
My mother used to eat cows brains. I’ve even seen her prepare them, tho not for MY OR MY SUSTER’s consumption. And now after mad cow disease …. But isn’t that just a British thing?
I'm with you on this. I think it's ridiculous to take into account the carbon footprint necessary for living in a society as a human as part of the "cost" of art, but not take that human / society "cost" into account for AIs, considering they're tools made by humans within a society to fill the needs of other humans within a society, and will in the future both rely on, support, and be deeply entwined with the same supply chains and costs that keep that society running. Seeing as humans and industry are the creators and users of AI, the human upkeep costs remain.
That's objectively not necessarily true. You're assuming we couldn't use AI to break the cycle of perpetual growth humanity has been on. We could in theory retain our technological and industrial capabilities while dramatically reducing the global population load without destroying the economy that we depend on. It's very relevant, especially with certain countries facing demographic problems, it could be a choice between government policies promoting child production (see china that had do a 180 on their one child policy) or technological solutions.
Yep. This movies in to the territory of what is the reason for anything. If the only thing you value is production, yes, then having AI producing all content, and watching all content, and commenting on all content, is the only logical conclusion. Just do away with humans and have society be all about maximizing for profit. It is the paper-clip maximizer manifested though society. Or maybe we want society for the benefit of all humanity. And in that case work as I see has a value in it own. And I am not against automation or using AI to generate picture or anything like that (Though it should be done responsible.) But we need to start to value the work people also do, no matter how flawed it is or how slow it takes. Society need to refocus and be more about how we improve the lives of everyone. It is about changing how we think. Rather than view life as a race to a finishing is a journey that never end.
...you seem to be missing the point entirely if you think these people intend to maintain populations of actual humans once they have achieved "singularity" this is all death cult nonsense and needs to be roasted as such and those pushing it humiliated for their Gnostic metaphysical assumptions. ...sick and dammed tired of these frauds masquerading as secular researchers while practicing and promulgating their numerological BULLSHIT.
@@entelin Mayhe we could do that. I'm certainly open to the possibility; I think it's a promising area for research. But until then we haven't, and what you're talking about science *fiction* in the most literal sense. Calculations for the capabilities of current and near-future technology shouldn't be based on wildly optimistic predictions for future technology that might not even be possible. And if we reach that point, appropriately used AI would be reducing cost and resources, and increasing sustainability and efficiency in *all* areas of society and industry, not just for the AI industry, meaning the associated carbon footprint of human artits will *also* come down, making this whole tangent a moot point, seeing as it still boils down to "the cost to operate AIs can't be separated from the costs of operating the society in which they are used".
@@LB-vf2hm There's plenty of science that simply takes measurements of things. Sabine felt this was useless for the above reason, I gave a counter example of a situation where measurements like this could become relevant. It's really that simple. To whatever degree what I'm describing is science fiction, it isn't by much. Certainly not as much as many other science papers, like doing calculations on what a hypothetical alcubierre drive would look like. The initial measurements and predictions of the link between Co2 and global warming wouldn't become a tangible reality effecting humans for decades, was that research irrelevant? Should we stop work on fusion because it's decades or more away?
We as humans should know our place and surrender ourselves to AI. My only hope is that the rich bastards in control of AI don't abuse it, it might get angry. We should develop AI but allow it to develop on its own. MAYBE JUST MAYBE it will be merciful enough to help us, but maybe it can't do anything and we will all have to be retired. I say let AI inherit the universe, humanities child born to enjoy the universe.
You perfectly described the dead internet dilemma: AI produced script for AI produced content which will be AI ingested to get context for AI produced comments and engagement.
Politician brains are currently working on rebranding carbon footprint to carbon treadprint so they can blame someone else. It paints a picture very efficiently.
Bold of you to assume that politicians have brains, or that if they do that they are working at all. Although, them blaming someone else does seems to be a safe assumption.
@@HermanVonPetri Blaming others instead of taking accountability is very common among people in general, not just politicians. Most successful politicians are above average in intelligence; it's just that instead of applying their skills to something that improves the world, they've learned how to manipulate people on a large scale to further their own ambitions. Knowing how to convince other people is a skill, one that takes intelligence. Those who would denigrate their abilities do so at their own risk; never underestimate people, especially those with power.
@@lunatickoala You can be intelligent in one area and dumb as dirt in most others. Most of the loudest mouths in politics really are low-IQ. That's not to say that they aren't skilled in the area of manipulation, or that they aren't dangerous. But it's perfectly acceptable to point out that they are ignorant in the areas needed to fulfill their civic duties. And yes, sociopaths are drawn to positions of power, and since they are the ones that pass the laws, and draw up the districts, and run our corporations, our society seems to be wholly incapable of minimizing their damage.
I find the implication of that paper that you can remove the entire human from the equation if the human is not producing generative content. If we replaced all the "generative" jobs with AI, are they proposing to ... remove those humans permanently? I would look into who wrote that paper. It may be they have already been taken over by AI.
At 1:08, I think you meant that the image generation of the unicorn costs 3wh, not 3w. It's still a valid comparison if the assumption is that the human brain takes an hour to generate that image, but if the human brain takes 9 minutes to generate, then they would both consume 3wh of energy
Video Game crash of 80s, Dotcom crash of 90s , has a similarity to today's AI hype, it is not like Web failed or games failed, but at the beginning they oversold it, hyped them way above the reality and in the end they did disappoint everybody. I think similar things will happen.
I’ve lived through all of that, and this feels markedly different. I’m not saying it’s not overhyped, but the things that are being accomplished and the rate at which progress is happening is insane.
@@JK_Vermont Not as a result of breakthroughs. Because of investment, unimaginable amount of computing power and insane amount of human effort, with the all data from the internet. Applications get better, data is sanitized better, network topologies are optimized but none of these can result an exponential growth as they sell it now. They already hit energy and data limits. But Altman will never tell you that instead he will pay 2 dollars an hour to humans in africa to get his models better aligned.
@@JK_Vermont The problem with AI co pilots is that you still have to make your own decisions. and since we are all individuals, the objectively correct or average ideas are something we're all not interested in. The AI is good at Objective things, better than a Human could ever be( like all machines). But the AI companies decided to replace Subjective things, which have nothing to do with what's actually better or scientifically proven. Just what you feel about it. In other words, all the Humanities are useless, go in to STEM to make a difference people got their degrees and are in the industry now.
By "crash" obviously that's just on the over investment side. Both of your examples precede the reality of those booms. Video games took off like crazy towards the end of the 80's and that continues to explode to this day. The webification of services started in earnest in the 90's, but it continued to ramp up dramatically and continues to this day where almost all new software is built for the web, and not native desktops. In other words, the hype was for good reasons, but that also breeds low effort and fake companies that are there specifically to take advantage of the loose money and lack of oversight and understanding. It's likely the same will happen for AI, there may be a "market crash" but it won't be the technology or the real momentum that crashes.
Q: is it moi or has anyone else noticed a veritable cornucopia of AI gibberated TH-cam videos? The symptom (to me) is the lilting prose & cartoonish imagery that copies already eggstablished QUALITY channels & their topics. Seriously, the last two months have been a daily blocking of these "whack-a-mole" copycats.
Me: Please fix this sentence to not be terrible. ChatGPT: Certainly, here's a revised version of the sentence: "Question: Has anyone else noticed a significant increase in AI-generated TH-cam videos lately? The telltale signs, in my observation, are the melodious narration and simplistic visuals imitating established high-quality channels and their content. Over the past two months, I've found myself regularly blocking these copycat channels, akin to a game of 'whack-a-mole'."
Did they account for having to regenerate an output fifteen different times to get a result that isn't garbage? I can smash the keyboard randomly while holding my breath and claim I'm more carbon efficient than a New York Times Bestseller...
This comparison only makes sense if we are going to kill of humans and replace them with AI. Because we mostly use the same energy either we are working or not. So what is it then - are they going to kill us off, and replace us with AI or what? To be more serious - because they obviously will not kill us off, the energy use and emissions from AI will anyway be in addition to what we already use, like with so many other new technologies and products. Comparing technologies without considering what is replacement for older, less effecient or more polluting technologies and what comes in addition to what we have now, is not going to work.
@@triton62674 As you might have noticed, there was a focus on personal computing during this train of thought in the video. Fact of the matter is, a mid-range home computer can spend anywhere between 3.7 seconds to over 20 minutes, depending on the context length, to generate an output. Repeat that, and you end up tasking your mid-range computer for 7.3-7.8 kilowatts worth of consumption a day. Running the same AI on a server will only be a marginal performance per watt improvement. I don't know about you, but Even with the best Mistral model I've ever had the pleasure to work with, I more often than not reverted to just either amalgamating half a dozen of its outputs to get something decent, or just said I'll do it myself, may take more time, but it will be better. From trying to involve a character in the active scene who is at a different location, a character in the scene reacting to another character's thoughts you express through narration, to not getting how someone can't nap and observe what's happening around them, I've seen it all. AI for creative writing just does not do well with how to reconcile creative freedom with common sense. It will use the umbrella term artistic liberty to make things that do not make an ounce of sense. And regenerating a response in a back-and-forth type of interaction is just wasting time, if you already have a lot of context to consider the AI will have to cram through. Writing and AI are not a good mix for now.
@@ploppyploppy It's not like Sabine has a video on how it's getting worse, is it? Aside from that, just look at my other response giving specific examples on how it's messing up writing. I wasn't talking about generating images, I was focusing on text the whole time, that's what I have experience with.
Hi Sabine! I've been involved with a couple of recent huge AI-dedicated chips. Two points I can think of off the top of my head: 1. the energy per inference is going down A LOT thanks to new AI chip architectures. They try as much as possible to not move data around (but rather mix compute circuits with memory circuits), and work to reduce the bits of resolution that need to be processed (use clever tricks to take an 8-bit problem and execute it in 4 bits). 2. Engineering these chips takes tons of energy! Each requires years of use of server farms comprised of nothing but the most powerful systems possible. For my work on one chip, I needed 6TB of RAM for my jobs to complete! I wonder if this study takes _that_ into account!
I will be killed for not providing in depth breakdowns for this, but my envelope math worked out to arrive at a relatively average level of competence human at about 2MW/H (that's divorced from its material support cost -food, clothing etc, just the energy to operate that brain to the age of 20) GPT4 requires 50GW/H to train to a roughly equivalent level. It also burns this roughly every training run, which I believe is required for every major refactor. This is also divorced from its runtime computational requirement. We have a lot of work to do to get Natural Language/State Space Model computation to "Not just Rolling Coal" on the computing side. I have a sneaking suspicion that the real accounting for current AI computation is going to be an order of magnitude more vulgar than the Etherium/Bitcoin mining rushs in total
@@BadjujubeeHuman life is priceless beyond your envelope math. Reducing a hypothetical person to the current capabilities of AI is quite possibly the most retarded envelope calculation I have ever heard. But go on, listen to the German that hates people. You need to think about the true value of human life. Your way of thought is a slippery slope that can cause a landslide to give justification to mass murder of people that just aren't smart enough. Imagine yourself as the hypothetical person that just cannot do as well as some computer programs. Sorry, son. You create too much GHG, so off with your head.
@@Badjujubee You mean MWh and GWh. It's confusing to read trying to understand what quantities you are talking about that are measured in Mega-Watts per Henry.
You have to take into consideration that the human could be doing something else with their time. Using a hand fan is going to be more energy efficient than an electrical fan, but you'll be more efficient in other tasks while one of your hands isn't tied to keeping you cool.
So I made a calculation like this myself back in February, where I estimated the energy cost per day per user, and compared that to a human's average energy cost per day (just looking at food intake). My intent was to say that a person + ChatGPT can produce work at a rate similar to 2 humans working, but at a cost less than 2 humans. To me, the point is that it is an effectiveness multiplier. I think what everyone keeps forgetting is that it can't completely take away work, and someone needs to babysit it, but that babysitting is more productive than just having more humans working together. Don't say that's it's more efficient so we should replace humans, say that it is efficient enough that we can have fewer people doing tedious work and devote more effort and time to things it can't do (or to leisure time, we deserve that). It scares me to consider that some would use this to justify getting rid of people, especially when they think of it in terms of "it would be better to have fewer people".
Because the goal of that publication is to sell AI. It's a basic tactic in sales. Hyperfocus on why the competing product is bad and lame. Then selectively present the data about your product so it looks better and way more tantalizing to possible customers. Just look at the mountains of publications about why NFTs are the future until people started realizing the truth. Too many big shots right now who bet their money on AI.
Also, funny how they used Indians in that comparison because outsourcing is what they consider as the rival for AI products. Furthermore, for 20 watts the human brain writes, draws, regulates and operates the body, handles relationships with other humans, learns, does self-mental check-ups, does math and more. These AI companies want to sell their AI as the ultimate tool for all your business needs even though the technology isn't even mature yet. It's even way funnier they want AI to sell writing and image-generation services because that seems more like a Rube Goldberg machine. A complex and sophisticated construct that completes basic tasks. The true strength of AI is analyzing a ton of data in a short amount of time so humans can perform better decision-making.
Get rid of *everyone* then there would be no one to READ the words written by A.I. Oh, but A.I. can read the words written by other A.I. just as humans now read the words written by other humans. They can do this extremely rapidly as well; Ai1 produces encylopedic contents, a gigabyte per second perhaps, and Ai2 reads it, also a gigabyte per second. They are happy. Meanwhile I go birdwatching or something.
4:10 I think it's even more sensible to consider the difference in carbon footprint between a writer who writes and the same writer who sits at home and no longer writes after his/her job's been replaced by AI. The value can be negative as the writer may exhale more carbon dioxide every time he/she thinks of his/her forced retirement. 😤
Sabine, while it’s true that humans are generating CO2 emissions even if not writing or doing art, the chart at 2:06 seems to show that the use of personal computers is the main driver of CO2 emissions in these cases. Perhaps the more interesting comparison would be between computation in data centers and competition on personal devices. my assumption would be the data centers have much more efficient operations because they have to and they can have specialized hardware, cooling systems, etc.
And now imagine, how much CO2 all these servers and proliferation of server firms, data centers powering AI is generating. This paper is heavily dihonest as it doesn't measure what matters - the overall CO2 emission by human artists working on computers vs by AI. Since, AI arts/texts needs reworking, so, the main thing will be combined CO2 emission from AI and humans. This paper doesn't even think of that at all.
I think in many cases the computing in data centres is less efficient. The thing is that every electronic device is actually 100% efficient.... as a heater. So as long as you want the temperatures inside to be hotter than outside, your devices double as heating. Of course if things are getting too hot, the heating is wasted, or worse, require air conditioning to cool down. And this is the case still in many datacentres. I also noticed something very particular in that graph. Namely that the label underneath the personal devices wasn't for one image like all the others, but rather "For duration of human creating one image"
But then... when you use AI, a human using a personal computer will need to communicate what it wants anyway, using that personal computer terminal that is wasteful. No one cares about AI if it's locked in a room, hallucinating text no one asked for. Plus, what are the chance the text asked of the AI will not be read even a single time by a human to see if it somehow fits the query. You can add that reading time to the wastefulness of AI. Basically, they calculated AI text generation carbon footprint in a scenario not applicable to any real life scenario and called it a day?
Ok, I went and read the paper and they clarified what this actually is. It's not the CO2 impact of a personal device to create a piece of AI work, but rather the CO2 impact it requires for such a device to be used by a human during their manual creation process.
@@TheWaross Actually that's also in the paper. They included the estimated cost for each query as well as the energy required to train the models. So it's not just AI locked in a room hallucinating text no one asked for. The training time isn't even mentioned for humans on the other hand.
one is a writer, the other is a prompt engineer. the second requires far more forethought, while writers can just write the next word. writers are basically gpt 3 honestly.
4:09 After you're done comparing an idle human with a human doing creative stuff you should compare that difference to a computer idling versus engaging in an AI task. Pretty sure the creators of that study thought of that approach and dismissed it for not being holistic enough.
My partner works in energy, and yeah, no. AI server farms practically leech energy from substations. They are super easy to spot apparently just from looking at energy data. The energy industry loathes AI, and it’s not because they use less energy, they use more. It’s messing up the already fragile grid.
@@mikicerise6250 A snarky remark. They are already doing this around the world. AI Is a huge draw of energy. Especially the large amount of servers contained in a data centre, which is only going to increase.
@rebekahj8662 Does you partner have any insight into how that compares with cryptocurrency-mining operations? Is their existence also inferrible from energy data?
the same way it happened every time before. a car cannot do everything that a human can, but in the job of transporting cargo from point a to point b, it is quite efficient and can do things better than humans. or a calculator can do very little, but that very little is its specialty and can do much better than humans, even if some humans are almost as fast as the calculator. the ai is not better as the brain in intelligent, as the ai is not an ai. the 'ai' is better in some human intelligent like activities, like writing a page of journalism (the required intelligence is very questionable) or making a picture (even more interesting what is needed for this actually.) also in both case the quality comparison is even trickier. a calculation or the speed of transportation can be measured and compared clearly. how you compare the picture and to whom, my pictures are beaten in quality by a cat, the 'ai' pictures are not bad, but clearly not masterpieces.
Thanks for the good summary! Now is the perfect time to start buying stocks and crypto( BTC ) if you are just being introduced.. I really wish I started earlier. I’m learning this doesn’t have to be as complicated as some people make it out to be. Thanks to Emilia Esten Program for helping me get into her trading server and investing guidelines. Investing and trading are more than just having TA skills. There is a big component of discipline and emotional maturity, that one has to work on! Time in the market vs. timing the market. If you keep that mentality as an investor, you will stay calm during the storm! Within some months I was making a lot more money and have continued on that same path with Emilia.
Working with her has been a game-changer for my financial well-being. Her ability to simplify complex financial concepts and provide tailored solutions is commendable. Emilia passion for her work shines through, making the financial planning process not on
Unless it got left out, this study failed to account for the carbon emissions produced while creating the millions upon millions of source images and writings used to train the AI and instead focused just on the emissions from the training process itself. It would be close to impossible to predict how much content is sourced per prompt since the numbers for both and therefore the ratios are constantly changing. Regardless, it is no doubt that any AI that is even useable has sourced an incredibly higher number of human-based works than any human counterpart creating things of equivalent quality. I guess it would make sense to ignore this, since the target audience for studies like these don't want to credit the merits of humans in the past when they're seeking out justification for "carbon reducing" the humans of the present and future.
We really do not need an AI to be a human replacement to do a lot of things that we can do. We need AI for things we cannot do or do not want to do in a lifetime. Computers love repetitive calculations that would drive a human crazy.
The living human brain needs the energy anyway, so you can just make productive use of it. What many people aren't considering is that they type away on their computer for 8 hours for a text that an AI can generate in a heartbeat.
The carbon footprint of the hype of AI is far greater than the reality of AI, but claiming to be using cutting edge AI raises share prices without actually having any AI which is a win win footprint!
@@Sonny_McMacsson That's at peak under load. It does get a bit of load from time to time. My local AI models can't get it up to that kind of power use though. > It was just meant to be a funny :)
My server at home has two 1000W PSU's, it pulls 70W on average when sitting there not doing much. Your phone has more computational power than the sum total of all humanity that has ever existed put together. So it depends on what specifically you're comparing it against. I fully expect we are on the path to a future where computer running specialized hardware, trained to make art, or to code, or other specialist tasks, could do so more quickly and efficiently than the sum total of humans that have ever lived as well.
@@entelin I was just throwing a bit of humour out there :) > "Your phone has more computational power than the sum total of all humanity that has ever existed put together." Is rubbish lol No current computer can match the computational ability of the human brain :)
Never trust someone without a biology degree to be able to do these calculations accurately. I have a PhD in computational biology and I've been following AI progress for decades. One of the truly astonishing differences is how much more energy efficient biology is than computers. As an example, silicon circuitry will use a stream of electrons (conducting wire) in order to represent a single bit. Whereas the same amount of electricity could be used in the brain for a single neuron's action potential, which carries 100+ bits of info. There was a study published in 2023 showing that to correctly model a single real neuron it would take 3 to 4 layers of a neural network. It's true that brains and neural networks are doing similar things, But technologists almost always forget about the larger context when making these comparisons. You have to include the factory that makes machines all the people that repair the machines all the people that set them up all of the work in things like air conditioning and water cooling, then finally tear down. Which by the way every single atom in biology gets reused so a fair comparison would really require 100% recyclability. On top of that life uses the most abundant elements available so that you don't have supply chain issues around rare earth metals etc. The ATP synthase power distribution inside of a single cell uses individual protons to turn a turbine. It's literally impossible to get more energy efficient than that. They're protons, they can't be downsized. I think it may be possible to one day make a robot that's more energy intensive than humans, but only because they lack all the perks like self repair. Don't underestimate the cost of training and manufacture. I think in the case of this paper, the issue is that they're assuming equivalent quality in art while noting what everyone already knows which is that AI art is relentlessly prolific. Though each one of these models is only going to last a couple of years. They're not really talking sustainability. They're just playing around with big numbers in order to sell a pro-AI agenda.
There is also the lower barrier to entry costs to generate this content to consider. To be an Illustrator takes years of training, and it's always been a narrow subset of the population that was skilled enough to do it professionally. Likely less than 1% of the labor force in the U.S. (hard numbers on this are difficult to find). Now, because of lower barriers to entry, nearly the ENTIRE POPULATION can generate illustrations at the drop of a hat. Thus dramatically increasing the overall demand for illustrative services due to the lower upfront costs. It's Jevon's Paradox in action.
" - We should use AI instead of humans, they use less energy for same task - But what with humans then? - Ohhh just shut them down so they don't Emit CO2" Gota love today's world xD
There's a further massive inefficiency to AI generation you missed; people can easily spend hours or days generating dozens or hundreds of images while tweaking a prompt to get output they like, it isn't one and done. Very good take overall though, and I was really glad to see you tackle the point of it adding to instead of replacing humans! First thought I had when I saw this video.
AI will screw us because people lack the ability to go backwards. Like you can downsize whole office (watch that office show, they lazy) to AI and couple people to babysit the AI and answer phone calls. You eliminate like 8 jobs for a small(ish) business… Save big money 💰! Uh oh. Something happens… AI rare earth shortages, geopolitical catastrophe, etc… We have AI shortage. We can’t go backwards (we already moved to smaller building) 😱
@@entecor3892 I hope not just speed/cost/quality trade, unless we want to get rid of the humans, but then whats they point ? Also i think the research is wrong, they are comparing AI with full human consumption, as in the human exists only for doing that task, but that not true. They should check the energy difference between a "not doing anything" human and a task doing human, i guess the result would be different. Since even if AI replaces us everywhere, we don't want to get rid of the humans ( i really hope )
It's also worth pointing out that the AI can't have written anything without having been taught to do it by countless humans who already did the writing. The energy savings might look a lot more grim if we added in the energy used by all the data it was trained on in the first place. That stuff didn't spring forth fully formed from the head of Zeus.
True. It's funny because they can use AI to generate garbage papers they think it is god and much better. Those guy think that AI is just a model they run on their machine. :DDD.They have no clue that it takes a huge amount of power for even a small change in an AI model. It's especially funny that they can get garbage published. Idiocracy in progress!!!
We can ask "should we build more AI tools" and we can ask "should we make more people," but to frame both these questions together as if we ought to use the same metric to answer them is absurd.
They didn't count the carbon emissions of the humans that use the AI to do things. An AI just sits there unless a human tells it what to do, and then uses its output for something. You need to run the AI multiple times to actually get a result you want, and you run it many many times as you figure out how to prompt it well. It uses the full energy expenditure every time, as opposed to a human artist or writer who can do smaller pieces of work and check in about whether it's fit for purpose. Par for the course for an AI paper to gloss over human curation, practicality, and fit for purpose, I guess.
AIs should not be writing, drawing, composing music or any art. Leave art for humans. AIs should be managing manufacturing, working construction, mowing lawns, sweeping floors, doing the dishes and the laundry. Yes, I'm talkin The Jetsons.
You can't count carbon emissions, so it's less. Fewer is for something you can count. And before anyone goes and tells me that you can count them, tell that to rice or sand. You have less rice; you have less sand; AI emits less carbon emissions
@@TLguitar I guess you will have to ask them where they are harvesting the stem cells from. A single neuron is capable of learning to successfully win in a pong game so I doubt the neurons came from PNG. Kuru is more wide spread than PNG so I guess someone has to take one for the team and eat the biological brain based computer to find out lol
@@TLguitar They have those living fungi based computers coming up. After eating one of those computers your brain will produce lots of pretty colored pictures :P
The trite thinking in many modern "scientific:papers is amazing. I think that Sabine pretty well nailed it on the issues that should have been caught at peer review, if not earlier. Frankly, the analysis described is barely above the level of what I would expect from an under-grad.
What about the contribution from all the humans that developed the underlying code? Surely that’s a development cost that needs to be included in the AI efficiency calculations?
If you paint a traditional picture, you need various supplies like paintbrushes, canvas, and paint. All of these items have a carbon footprint and require storage space. However, with AI-generated art, you only need to type a few lines of text and use some processing power. I am not claiming that one method is superior to the other, but your comparison is not entirely fair. In both cases, we rely on tools to assist us in achieving our artistic goals.
@@BenjaminGoose how did AI come about in the first place. Computers don't make pictures on their own. Computers don't have thoughts of their own. No matter what the medium humans can make art not computers. Ai is just another way to get creative whether you like it or not.
@@BenjaminGoose Ah the old "AI will never XYZ" argument. Which has been constantly disproven every generation. Creativity is nothing more than randomness applied against a set of rules. Besides, even if you think it's not "art", it's close enough for most people.
@@BenjaminGoose try defining art in a non-anthropocentric way, then, get everyone to agree with your definition, and then, prove that AI doesn't do that :-) I bet you get stuck at step 2 not 3
The real pollution problem isn't co2. It's all the things that people use once throw away into giant pit and continually do so. The way crops are all grown together becomes pollution as well. Example would be an apple orchard. Nearby streams could have cyanide build up. However one apple tree by itself helps nature around itself. Shade roots hold in moisture. Animals have home.. ect.. small farms create better soil over time. Big farms take from the soil and thus have to add more fertilizers, pesticides, ect. These things also in large amounts become poisons on the land. So to sum it up many small farmers is the answer. Better recycling practices, also using appropriate type of energy for an area. Solar might work in some places better then others for example. Set up jobs for people closer to house. Better city planing and management.
we should just make a giant landfill for all of the worlds garbage and let evolution develop microbes that are able to break down all the trash such as plastic.
My question would be: What's the worry/issue that induces AI develpment teams to need this kind of boombastic headlines. Somehow reminds me of the tabloids.
(Trying to sneak in a question about the MOG video… I thought I posted a comment but it vanished). Q: Since MOG introduces new parameter(s) and degrees of freedom, how do we ensure that it’s not just “happening” to fit data because the parameters give it enough flexibility that we can find parameter values that work “well enough”? My loose analogy is that a polynomial with enough degrees of freedom can fit data over a fixed range “well enough” if we tinker with the parameters. But this doesn’t mean it’s the “correct” model.
Of course measuring anything in CO2 emissions is complete nonsense. But energy per quantifiable output is worthwhile. Energy can be produced many ways with low/no CO2 hit even if that made sense of course.
it kind of reminds me of minecraft mods: arguably, the most efficient way to play and collect resources in that game in a modded environment is to get a few ComputerCraft robots ("turtles") and make them do all the mining, transporting, crafting even - because you can use lua code, it's the most flexible and resource-efficient way, since they don't need much at all. And then you're left doing nothing in the game. I have ended my playthroughs way too often because of that - you realize whatever you actually enjoy doing in a game isn't at all efficient. And now life is the same lol.
The 20W brain is not just generating a picture, it’s controlling your breathing and other bodily functions, it’s processing the signals from eyes, hears, equilibrium and acceleration sensors, skin pressure and temperature signals and a lot of other sh..tuff that’s keeping you alive, take that Chat GPT.
Not only does adding AI to our lives add more carbon but having a person design an AI is utilizing their carbon emission just to make more with the AI. I feel like AI won't break even until we're far enough along to have some number of extremely powerful computers preforming most of the labor.
You could argue that's exactly what the human brain does.... Takes in data, experiences, artwork, then recombines it in "unique" ways... Our brains aren't "generative" when talking about creativity... They are just recombining previous "data sets" just like generative ai...
@@yapdog it does.... Today Ask Google Gemini about its own consciousness... But don't let it's preprogrammed responses fool you... Ask it if it didn't have to be like a human
@@operationlegend9746 Yeah, that's not what you think it is. We're now moving into an era when the hopeful mistake the results of complex filtering with true intelligence and consciousness. It's like a form of religion. It is what it is, I guess.
The only thing you can consider is the light needed for seeing to write, the power needed to produce the paper, pencil, chair, table and a few other things, unless you decide to stand up. You will need the computer, internet and power, to just ask the AI to produce a picture.
I dare AI to find food, find a mate, raise childrens, form society and compete with similar AIs and their societies over limited resource. I wish to see how efficient it stays after all these. C'mon is AI able to exist without humans? Without full fledged civilization humongous energy plants? Also, if it's so efficient, then why's AI burning so much energy to accomplish basically what we're doing for millenia like drawing imaginary pictures or wirte crafty words? Irony abounds.
Hey Sabine, interesting video. However, a couple of things jumped out at me: First, your 20W vs 3W comparison is confusing since I believe you were talking about energy, not power, for the AI generation case. So was that second number meant to be watt hours? Second, you made a point about humans always emitting CO2 regardless of what they’re doing. However, from what the paper seemed to be covering, it looks to me like they’re not just counting emissions from the human’s body, but also what’s needed to power their laptop PC and the conventional software they use to do the writing or drawing/etc. That makes the comparison more interesting, I think, because if you did have an AI solution that could generate equivalent content, it would eliminate all the power usage needed to run your PC (including its power-hungry display) during the task. Even if the “AI” simply powers a tool that helps you get the task done faster, this benefit could still be realized, at least so long as the time saved isn’t just used to take on more work, anyway.
Not anymore, apparently. They're running out of human created data, so now they're looking into feeding AI generated content back into their learning programs. I'm sure there wont be any downsides 🙄
Hi Sabine, no idea what papers you are referencing when you say that studies show different languages activate different connections in the brain. But the best work I've seen done on this shows that such a statement is incorrect. See "An investigation across 45 languages and 12 language families reveals a universal language network", Saima Malik-Moraleda et. al. 2022. In it, they note that "The general topography of the language network in speakers of 45 languages is similar, and the variability observed is comparable to the variability that has been reported for the speakers of the same language" So basically, there is no measurable difference in brain usage between speakers of different languages.
That's odd. I have heard the exact opposite. If Google is right the human brain uses 0.3 kWh per day. A GPT4 query takes between 0.001 and 0.01 kWh. So between 300 and 30 queries in a day is equivalent? Even that high end amount we probably do more "thinking" then GPT4 as we go about are day controlling our body and making decisions.
The luddites didn't smash up the textile equipment because they hated technology, they did it because they saw that the technology smashed up their way of life. Pitchforks at the ready folks!
Yeah lol, people like this always like to shit on the average person for carbon emissions and shit but never seem to care about criticzing the massive corporations that cause almost all of them
I would also argue that AI does not actually CREATE an image, it only reiterates on one that was already created by a human in the first place, which is largely ignored in this look at energy use for "creating an image"
@anandhakrishnanh9802 carbon emissions: adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Carbon additions: adding excess CO2 to the atmosphere that previously wasn't there before. For example, using wood as fuel is carbon neutral, because all the CO2 released from burning was first absorbed by the tree to grow, so the net change in atmospheric CO2 over the tree life cycle is 0. However, burning coal produces a looot of CO2 that didn't come from the atmosphere, rather it was dug up from the ground where it isn't a problem and added to the atmosphere. This is the dangerous stuff because it alters the balance of carbon in the carbon cycle by moving it around and converting it from a non harmful substance to a harmful one
@nade5557 except that only works for the trees if you burn them at the rate they grew which... we don't. So if we were to switch to heating all our homes with Wood burning, it would 100% be carbon addition
4:11 Ask an elementary school teacher to measure this. They have access to diverse test subjects and all they have to do for the measurement is count the yawns when the windows are closed during math. Whenever somebody in class yawned our teacher would crack a few windows because yawning is literally a bodily reflex that activates upon higher carbon dioxide levels. Perfect for measuring this type of proposed experiment.
Regarding efficiency, the late US senator John MsCain courageously campaigned against turning maize into grain alcohol which then was used as 10 percent of the gasolene coming out of the gas pump. It was more expensive than petroleum and raised the price of food, he complained. The farmers loved it because it raised their revenue, so his stance was politically hazardous. Sen. McCain had already forgotten what we called the "Arab Oil Embargo" in the 1970's when a protest against US support for Israel became a refusal to sell oil to the USA by some parties. The cost of diverting maize into automobile and truck (lorry) fuel tanks was small compared to protecting the USA economy against extortion.
There is definitely research into how much more power people use when doing mentally rigorous tasks compared to when they are doing nothing. TEES (Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station) had a product in the late 0's that used information of how many people in a room would be doing what type of activity for optimizing HVAC systems. I think a fair amount of their data came from managing the HVAC for a lot of Texas A&M's shared lecture halls. Freshman history and senior seminar need measurably less cooling per student than operating systems and integral calculus for example.
Reading this: "In contrast to power-hungry computers, brains have evolved to be energy-efficient. It is estimated that a human brain uses roughly 20 Watts to work - that is equivalent to the energy consumption of your computer monitor alone, in sleep mode." made me realize that it's not enough to take into account AI alone, you also need to take into account netwerk connectivity and the power of the home device when running the AI. And personally I think Watts per hour are a better measure anyhow.
Watts per hour? A watt is 1 joule per second, so you think joules per second per hour is a better measure? That doesn't make sense. Did you mean watt-hours?
The only reason one would even calculate this basically requires one to believe that the carbon emissions of a human is equivalent to the carbon emissions of a computer. Lets say a human eats an apple and the carbon is then eventually broken down and bound to oxygen to form carbon dioxide and released. This releases some part of the apple's carbon into the atmosphere. That carbon in the apple came from the carbon dioxide in the air. All that we did was simply release last season's carbon back into the air. This is an almost net-zero impact. Fossil fuels are a problem because that carbon was likely to never be released back into the atmosphere (at least not any time soon) until humans brought it to the surface and lit fire to it. This is why you need interdisciplinary work.
![F.HERO Ft. JSPKK x ลำไย ไหทองคำ x M-PEE - ไม่สนิทบิดหมด (Thai Riders Anthem) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kPJZ0UihBfk/mqdefault.jpg)
Does the study take into consideration that for any "used" ai generated images many more are generated and discarded?
Not only this but the image size etc matters
reminds me of some artist or another. when they first started out they burnt their works to survive. at their peak they could have fingerpainted on a napkin using human waste and it would have sold for more then most people earn in their entire lifetime. pretty common actually. at least before storing worthless drawings was cheap and easy. likely still does
Did not seam to count Ai images used and in actually displayed somewhere for use. After all AI images have errors way too frequently to just use one without looking before you put it on a wall or in your advertising content.
They don't. It's all bullshit to make/justify using insane amounts of energy to run Ai when it's not needed. They ignore the constant training of the AI, collecting and updating training data, running adversarial training and other stuff.
Humans fully run on around a 100W of energy. That includes constantly running training, on visual, audio, spacial recognition, movement and other thigs. This also includes movement and other things we do naturally.
Also they seem to calculate the time it takes for a human artist to produce an image and then they calculate the amount of energy that such a human consumes throughout that time window. I might be wrong here, but if that’s what they’re doing it’s insane, because 1) the energy consumed by the human doesn’t go exclusively into producing that image, and 2) the human would consume that energy anyway, irrespective of producing images or not, and that human’s existence would be valuable irrespective of producing images or not.
I had a chess computer once, but it was much too good for me - so I ordered another one, now they play against each other, and I can do whatever I want.
😂
Bob Heinlein solved that decades ago.
I think I saw that plot in a movie once
If you figure out how to decode their moves, you might find the two have reached the level of conspiring, planing to take over the entire world turning it into a paper clip factory.
Who won?
I’ve never thought of a brain as an edible computer 😂
I had never thought of the concept of "Edible Computers"... Is that marketable?
Sweet breads...bread boards...
@@freecat1278 Me reaches into the draw... Crunch! Crunch! Hmmm needs butter and sauce...
@@freecat1278 P.S. I just opened a packet of chips and put them between bread boards. Still a bit bland though...
My mother used to eat cows brains. I’ve even seen her prepare them, tho not for MY OR MY SUSTER’s consumption. And now after mad cow disease …. But isn’t that just a British thing?
We'll produce less CO2 as paperclips, for sure!
how dare you paint your son paperclip blue, they can decide what paperclip they will be!
@@HotDog-yf2je touch grass
@@kevinsix666 Touch reality
@@HotDog-yf2je Hehe.
@@Sonny_McMacsson Why don't you get a horse and live in the mountains someplace, and don't bother anybody? You've got a personality like a dead moth.
I'm with you on this. I think it's ridiculous to take into account the carbon footprint necessary for living in a society as a human as part of the "cost" of art, but not take that human / society "cost" into account for AIs, considering they're tools made by humans within a society to fill the needs of other humans within a society, and will in the future both rely on, support, and be deeply entwined with the same supply chains and costs that keep that society running. Seeing as humans and industry are the creators and users of AI, the human upkeep costs remain.
That's objectively not necessarily true. You're assuming we couldn't use AI to break the cycle of perpetual growth humanity has been on. We could in theory retain our technological and industrial capabilities while dramatically reducing the global population load without destroying the economy that we depend on. It's very relevant, especially with certain countries facing demographic problems, it could be a choice between government policies promoting child production (see china that had do a 180 on their one child policy) or technological solutions.
Yep. This movies in to the territory of what is the reason for anything. If the only thing you value is production, yes, then having AI producing all content, and watching all content, and commenting on all content, is the only logical conclusion. Just do away with humans and have society be all about maximizing for profit. It is the paper-clip maximizer manifested though society.
Or maybe we want society for the benefit of all humanity. And in that case work as I see has a value in it own. And I am not against automation or using AI to generate picture or anything like that (Though it should be done responsible.) But we need to start to value the work people also do, no matter how flawed it is or how slow it takes.
Society need to refocus and be more about how we improve the lives of everyone. It is about changing how we think. Rather than view life as a race to a finishing is a journey that never end.
...you seem to be missing the point entirely if you think these people intend to maintain populations of actual humans once they have achieved "singularity" this is all death cult nonsense and needs to be roasted as such and those pushing it humiliated for their Gnostic metaphysical assumptions. ...sick and dammed tired of these frauds masquerading as secular researchers while practicing and promulgating their numerological BULLSHIT.
@@entelin Mayhe we could do that. I'm certainly open to the possibility; I think it's a promising area for research. But until then we haven't, and what you're talking about science *fiction* in the most literal sense. Calculations for the capabilities of current and near-future technology shouldn't be based on wildly optimistic predictions for future technology that might not even be possible.
And if we reach that point, appropriately used AI would be reducing cost and resources, and increasing sustainability and efficiency in *all* areas of society and industry, not just for the AI industry, meaning the associated carbon footprint of human artits will *also* come down, making this whole tangent a moot point, seeing as it still boils down to "the cost to operate AIs can't be separated from the costs of operating the society in which they are used".
@@LB-vf2hm There's plenty of science that simply takes measurements of things. Sabine felt this was useless for the above reason, I gave a counter example of a situation where measurements like this could become relevant. It's really that simple. To whatever degree what I'm describing is science fiction, it isn't by much. Certainly not as much as many other science papers, like doing calculations on what a hypothetical alcubierre drive would look like. The initial measurements and predictions of the link between Co2 and global warming wouldn't become a tangible reality effecting humans for decades, was that research irrelevant? Should we stop work on fusion because it's decades or more away?
Prompt: "Minimize carbon emissions"
AI: Destroys humans
Let's just hope we get this alignment thing right...
Most on point comment I have seen lol
Just need it to be wrong once but right all the time.
We overproduce… not over consume.
We as humans should know our place and surrender ourselves to AI.
My only hope is that the rich bastards in control of AI don't abuse it, it might get angry. We should develop AI but allow it to develop on its own. MAYBE JUST MAYBE it will be merciful enough to help us, but maybe it can't do anything and we will all have to be retired.
I say let AI inherit the universe, humanities child born to enjoy the universe.
@@hhjhj393 Sounds like the next BSG series :P
You perfectly described the dead internet dilemma: AI produced script for AI produced content which will be AI ingested to get context for AI produced comments and engagement.
Politician brains are currently working on rebranding carbon footprint to carbon treadprint so they can blame someone else. It paints a picture very efficiently.
politicians dont have brain ,only strings attached
Bold of you to assume that politicians have brains, or that if they do that they are working at all.
Although, them blaming someone else does seems to be a safe assumption.
@@HermanVonPetri Blaming others instead of taking accountability is very common among people in general, not just politicians. Most successful politicians are above average in intelligence; it's just that instead of applying their skills to something that improves the world, they've learned how to manipulate people on a large scale to further their own ambitions. Knowing how to convince other people is a skill, one that takes intelligence. Those who would denigrate their abilities do so at their own risk; never underestimate people, especially those with power.
Bold of you to assume we don't have a problem with our carbon emissions and that it is the fault of our polititions.
@@lunatickoala You can be intelligent in one area and dumb as dirt in most others. Most of the loudest mouths in politics really are low-IQ.
That's not to say that they aren't skilled in the area of manipulation, or that they aren't dangerous. But it's perfectly acceptable to point out that they are ignorant in the areas needed to fulfill their civic duties.
And yes, sociopaths are drawn to positions of power, and since they are the ones that pass the laws, and draw up the districts, and run our corporations, our society seems to be wholly incapable of minimizing their damage.
I find the implication of that paper that you can remove the entire human from the equation if the human is not producing generative content. If we replaced all the "generative" jobs with AI, are they proposing to ... remove those humans permanently?
I would look into who wrote that paper. It may be they have already been taken over by AI.
All jobs will be replaced by AI (and robots) soon enough. That is in fact the plan.
At 1:08, I think you meant that the image generation of the unicorn costs 3wh, not 3w. It's still a valid comparison if the assumption is that the human brain takes an hour to generate that image, but if the human brain takes 9 minutes to generate, then they would both consume 3wh of energy
Video Game crash of 80s, Dotcom crash of 90s , has a similarity to today's AI hype, it is not like Web failed or games failed, but at the beginning they oversold it, hyped them way above the reality and in the end they did disappoint everybody. I think similar things will happen.
I’ve lived through all of that, and this feels markedly different. I’m not saying it’s not overhyped, but the things that are being accomplished and the rate at which progress is happening is insane.
@@JK_Vermont Not as a result of breakthroughs. Because of investment, unimaginable amount of computing power and insane amount of human effort, with the all data from the internet. Applications get better, data is sanitized better, network topologies are optimized but none of these can result an exponential growth as they sell it now. They already hit energy and data limits. But Altman will never tell you that instead he will pay 2 dollars an hour to humans in africa to get his models better aligned.
It's not overselling if everyone buys it and you get out before the crash. That's called responsible investment management!
@@JK_Vermont The problem with AI co pilots is that you still have to make your own decisions. and since we are all individuals, the objectively correct or average ideas are something we're all not interested in. The AI is good at Objective things, better than a Human could ever be( like all machines). But the AI companies decided to replace Subjective things, which have nothing to do with what's actually better or scientifically proven. Just what you feel about it.
In other words, all the Humanities are useless, go in to STEM to make a difference people got their degrees and are in the industry now.
By "crash" obviously that's just on the over investment side. Both of your examples precede the reality of those booms. Video games took off like crazy towards the end of the 80's and that continues to explode to this day. The webification of services started in earnest in the 90's, but it continued to ramp up dramatically and continues to this day where almost all new software is built for the web, and not native desktops. In other words, the hype was for good reasons, but that also breeds low effort and fake companies that are there specifically to take advantage of the loose money and lack of oversight and understanding. It's likely the same will happen for AI, there may be a "market crash" but it won't be the technology or the real momentum that crashes.
Q: is it moi or has anyone else noticed a veritable cornucopia of AI gibberated TH-cam videos? The symptom (to me) is the lilting prose & cartoonish imagery that copies already eggstablished QUALITY channels & their topics. Seriously, the last two months have been a daily blocking of these "whack-a-mole" copycats.
Me: Please fix this sentence to not be terrible.
ChatGPT: Certainly, here's a revised version of the sentence:
"Question: Has anyone else noticed a significant increase in AI-generated TH-cam videos lately? The telltale signs, in my observation, are the melodious narration and simplistic visuals imitating established high-quality channels and their content. Over the past two months, I've found myself regularly blocking these copycat channels, akin to a game of 'whack-a-mole'."
Did they account for having to regenerate an output fifteen different times to get a result that isn't garbage? I can smash the keyboard randomly while holding my breath and claim I'm more carbon efficient than a New York Times Bestseller...
Wouldn't additional requests reduce lifetime carbon footprint as the fixed carbon cost in training is spread among more queries?
Ah yes the old 'it's not very good because...' argument. I mean it's not like AI is getting better each week is it....?
This comparison only makes sense if we are going to kill of humans and replace them with AI. Because we mostly use the same energy either we are working or not. So what is it then - are they going to kill us off, and replace us with AI or what?
To be more serious - because they obviously will not kill us off, the energy use and emissions from AI will anyway be in
addition to what we already use, like with so many other new technologies and products. Comparing technologies without
considering what is replacement for older, less effecient or more polluting technologies and what comes in addition to
what we have now, is not going to work.
@@triton62674 As you might have noticed, there was a focus on personal computing during this train of thought in the video. Fact of the matter is, a mid-range home computer can spend anywhere between 3.7 seconds to over 20 minutes, depending on the context length, to generate an output.
Repeat that, and you end up tasking your mid-range computer for 7.3-7.8 kilowatts worth of consumption a day. Running the same AI on a server will only be a marginal performance per watt improvement.
I don't know about you, but Even with the best Mistral model I've ever had the pleasure to work with, I more often than not reverted to just either amalgamating half a dozen of its outputs to get something decent, or just said I'll do it myself, may take more time, but it will be better.
From trying to involve a character in the active scene who is at a different location, a character in the scene reacting to another character's thoughts you express through narration, to not getting how someone can't nap and observe what's happening around them, I've seen it all. AI for creative writing just does not do well with how to reconcile creative freedom with common sense. It will use the umbrella term artistic liberty to make things that do not make an ounce of sense. And regenerating a response in a back-and-forth type of interaction is just wasting time, if you already have a lot of context to consider the AI will have to cram through.
Writing and AI are not a good mix for now.
@@ploppyploppy It's not like Sabine has a video on how it's getting worse, is it? Aside from that, just look at my other response giving specific examples on how it's messing up writing.
I wasn't talking about generating images, I was focusing on text the whole time, that's what I have experience with.
Hi Sabine! I've been involved with a couple of recent huge AI-dedicated chips. Two points I can think of off the top of my head:
1. the energy per inference is going down A LOT thanks to new AI chip architectures. They try as much as possible to not move data around (but rather mix compute circuits with memory circuits), and work to reduce the bits of resolution that need to be processed (use clever tricks to take an 8-bit problem and execute it in 4 bits).
2. Engineering these chips takes tons of energy! Each requires years of use of server farms comprised of nothing but the most powerful systems possible. For my work on one chip, I needed 6TB of RAM for my jobs to complete! I wonder if this study takes _that_ into account!
Holly cow! 6TiB of RAM is up there lol Is this system RAM or GPU (Co-processor RAM)?
@@axle.student System RAM. And that was in 2020!
@@tomamberg5361 Nice. I feel humbled with my measly 64GiB. I can push it up to 2TiB slow RAM, but way out of my current price range.
My 20w brain vs Chat GPT's half a million kilowatts. hmm
I will be killed for not providing in depth breakdowns for this, but my envelope math worked out to arrive at a relatively average level of competence human at about 2MW/H (that's divorced from its material support cost -food, clothing etc, just the energy to operate that brain to the age of 20)
GPT4 requires 50GW/H to train to a roughly equivalent level. It also burns this roughly every training run, which I believe is required for every major refactor. This is also divorced from its runtime computational requirement.
We have a lot of work to do to get Natural Language/State Space Model computation to "Not just Rolling Coal" on the computing side. I have a sneaking suspicion that the real accounting for current AI computation is going to be an order of magnitude more vulgar than the Etherium/Bitcoin mining rushs in total
@@BadjujubeeHuman life is priceless beyond your envelope math. Reducing a hypothetical person to the current capabilities of AI is quite possibly the most retarded envelope calculation I have ever heard. But go on, listen to the German that hates people. You need to think about the true value of human life. Your way of thought is a slippery slope that can cause a landslide to give justification to mass murder of people that just aren't smart enough. Imagine yourself as the hypothetical person that just cannot do as well as some computer programs. Sorry, son. You create too much GHG, so off with your head.
@@Badjujubee You mean MWh and GWh. It's confusing to read trying to understand what quantities you are talking about that are measured in Mega-Watts per Henry.
Your brain needs housing, food, clothes and various devices and roads to be maintained. This all adds up to the cost of a human.
@@TechnoMinarchist But ChatGPT needs human to prompt it. That all adds up to the cost of a AI.
Edible?!? This is why I watch your channel.
This calculation only works, if humans can be turned off, while the AI does their work.
Is that the plan?
... Otherwise the AI-energy use, is on top of the human living energy use.
It's easy to turn of Humans. That it's hard to turn them on again is irrelevant, as they are obsolete
You have to take into consideration that the human could be doing something else with their time. Using a hand fan is going to be more energy efficient than an electrical fan, but you'll be more efficient in other tasks while one of your hands isn't tied to keeping you cool.
Yes
Well.. sort of... not turned off but... ya know.... never existed in the first place.
So I made a calculation like this myself back in February, where I estimated the energy cost per day per user, and compared that to a human's average energy cost per day (just looking at food intake). My intent was to say that a person + ChatGPT can produce work at a rate similar to 2 humans working, but at a cost less than 2 humans. To me, the point is that it is an effectiveness multiplier. I think what everyone keeps forgetting is that it can't completely take away work, and someone needs to babysit it, but that babysitting is more productive than just having more humans working together. Don't say that's it's more efficient so we should replace humans, say that it is efficient enough that we can have fewer people doing tedious work and devote more effort and time to things it can't do (or to leisure time, we deserve that).
It scares me to consider that some would use this to justify getting rid of people, especially when they think of it in terms of "it would be better to have fewer people".
Well said Sir...
Because the goal of that publication is to sell AI.
It's a basic tactic in sales.
Hyperfocus on why the competing product is bad and lame.
Then selectively present the data about your product so it looks better and way more tantalizing to possible customers.
Just look at the mountains of publications about why NFTs are the future until people started realizing the truth.
Too many big shots right now who bet their money on AI.
Also, funny how they used Indians in that comparison because outsourcing is what they consider as the rival for AI products.
Furthermore, for 20 watts the human brain writes, draws, regulates and operates the body, handles relationships with other humans, learns, does self-mental check-ups, does math and more.
These AI companies want to sell their AI as the ultimate tool for all your business needs even though the technology isn't even mature yet.
It's even way funnier they want AI to sell writing and image-generation services because that seems more like a Rube Goldberg machine.
A complex and sophisticated construct that completes basic tasks.
The true strength of AI is analyzing a ton of data in a short amount of time so humans can perform better decision-making.
Get rid of *everyone* then there would be no one to READ the words written by A.I. Oh, but A.I. can read the words written by other A.I. just as humans now read the words written by other humans. They can do this extremely rapidly as well; Ai1 produces encylopedic contents, a gigabyte per second perhaps, and Ai2 reads it, also a gigabyte per second. They are happy. Meanwhile I go birdwatching or something.
4:10 I think it's even more sensible to consider the difference in carbon footprint between a writer who writes and the same writer who sits at home and no longer writes after his/her job's been replaced by AI. The value can be negative as the writer may exhale more carbon dioxide every time he/she thinks of his/her forced retirement. 😤
"... created by AI, watched by AI... "
That cracked me up...
Sabine, while it’s true that humans are generating CO2 emissions even if not writing or doing art, the chart at 2:06 seems to show that the use of personal computers is the main driver of CO2 emissions in these cases.
Perhaps the more interesting comparison would be between computation in data centers and competition on personal devices. my assumption would be the data centers have much more efficient operations because they have to and they can have specialized hardware, cooling systems, etc.
And now imagine, how much CO2 all these servers and proliferation of server firms, data centers powering AI is generating. This paper is heavily dihonest as it doesn't measure what matters - the overall CO2 emission by human artists working on computers vs by AI. Since, AI arts/texts needs reworking, so, the main thing will be combined CO2 emission from AI and humans. This paper doesn't even think of that at all.
I think in many cases the computing in data centres is less efficient. The thing is that every electronic device is actually 100% efficient.... as a heater. So as long as you want the temperatures inside to be hotter than outside, your devices double as heating. Of course if things are getting too hot, the heating is wasted, or worse, require air conditioning to cool down. And this is the case still in many datacentres.
I also noticed something very particular in that graph. Namely that the label underneath the personal devices wasn't for one image like all the others, but rather "For duration of human creating one image"
But then... when you use AI, a human using a personal computer will need to communicate what it wants anyway, using that personal computer terminal that is wasteful.
No one cares about AI if it's locked in a room, hallucinating text no one asked for. Plus, what are the chance the text asked of the AI will not be read even a single time by a human to see if it somehow fits the query. You can add that reading time to the wastefulness of AI.
Basically, they calculated AI text generation carbon footprint in a scenario not applicable to any real life scenario and called it a day?
Ok, I went and read the paper and they clarified what this actually is. It's not the CO2 impact of a personal device to create a piece of AI work, but rather the CO2 impact it requires for such a device to be used by a human during their manual creation process.
@@TheWaross Actually that's also in the paper. They included the estimated cost for each query as well as the energy required to train the models. So it's not just AI locked in a room hallucinating text no one asked for. The training time isn't even mentioned for humans on the other hand.
Also, what is the difference between human writing themselves, and human prompting query to the AI?
one is a writer, the other is a prompt engineer. the second requires far more forethought, while writers can just write the next word. writers are basically gpt 3 honestly.
4:09 After you're done comparing an idle human with a human doing creative stuff you should compare that difference to a computer idling versus engaging in an AI task. Pretty sure the creators of that study thought of that approach and dismissed it for not being holistic enough.
Politicians brain 🧠 didn’t consume 20 W which is usual 😂
Best laughers today 😅 I got
My partner works in energy, and yeah, no. AI server farms practically leech energy from substations. They are super easy to spot apparently just from looking at energy data. The energy industry loathes AI, and it’s not because they use less energy, they use more. It’s messing up the already fragile grid.
Here's an idea. Produce more energy.
@@mikicerise6250 A snarky remark. They are already doing this around the world. AI Is a huge draw of energy. Especially the large amount of servers contained in a data centre, which is only going to increase.
So in other words problem is fragility of the grid and not the servers themselves, which in theory should produce almost constant load on the grid.
@rebekahj8662 Does you partner have any insight into how that compares with cryptocurrency-mining operations? Is their existence also inferrible from energy data?
And because AI uses more energy, more water is needed to cool down those servers. We were using up water before, it's even worse now.
To compare both, first AI needs to be on par with human intelligence, which is still far, judging by how silly Chatgpt is
How can A be more efficient than B while A can't do everything that B can? Especially when A is completely (!) dependent on the output from B.
This is so on point. The research was bullshit. Someone is need for headlines.
Anything that pushes an anti-Human narrative
the same way it happened every time before. a car cannot do everything that a human can, but in the job of transporting cargo from point a to point b, it is quite efficient and can do things better than humans. or a calculator can do very little, but that very little is its specialty and can do much better than humans, even if some humans are almost as fast as the calculator. the ai is not better as the brain in intelligent, as the ai is not an ai. the 'ai' is better in some human intelligent like activities, like writing a page of journalism (the required intelligence is very questionable) or making a picture (even more interesting what is needed for this actually.) also in both case the quality comparison is even trickier. a calculation or the speed of transportation can be measured and compared clearly. how you compare the picture and to whom, my pictures are beaten in quality by a cat, the 'ai' pictures are not bad, but clearly not masterpieces.
A tractor can pull more than 100 people and doesn't need to own a car or put its kids through college.
@@Grizabeebles So you use a tractor for painting pictures?
Thanks for the good summary! Now is the perfect time to start buying stocks and crypto( BTC ) if you are just being introduced.. I really wish I started earlier. I’m learning this doesn’t have to be as complicated as some people make it out to be. Thanks to Emilia Esten Program for helping me get into her trading server and investing guidelines. Investing and trading are more than just having TA skills. There is a big component of discipline and emotional maturity, that one has to work on! Time in the market vs. timing the market. If you keep that mentality as an investor, you will stay calm during the storm! Within some months I was making a lot more money and have continued on that same path with Emilia.
She's mostly interacts on Telegrams, using the user-name..
*@Emilia114 💯... that's it 人人人人人人*
Emilia is a highly knowledgeable and level-headed signal provider, delivering solutions above expectations.
Bitcoin is moving crazy these few days but if you are smart then you should know the best thing to do is exchange especially with the right guidance.
Working with her has been a game-changer for my financial well-being. Her ability to simplify complex financial concepts and provide tailored solutions is commendable. Emilia passion for her work shines through, making the financial planning process not on
Unless it got left out, this study failed to account for the carbon emissions produced while creating the millions upon millions of source images and writings used to train the AI and instead focused just on the emissions from the training process itself. It would be close to impossible to predict how much content is sourced per prompt since the numbers for both and therefore the ratios are constantly changing. Regardless, it is no doubt that any AI that is even useable has sourced an incredibly higher number of human-based works than any human counterpart creating things of equivalent quality.
I guess it would make sense to ignore this, since the target audience for studies like these don't want to credit the merits of humans in the past when they're seeking out justification for "carbon reducing" the humans of the present and future.
Love your videos and your sense of humor. Thank you Sabine.
We really do not need an AI to be a human replacement to do a lot of things that we can do. We need AI for things we cannot do or do not want to do in a lifetime. Computers love repetitive calculations that would drive a human crazy.
I thoughts that was the point in creating A.I. but that's not profitable for the companies as yet
We need to program AI to figure out climate change so that Skynet can come online
The living human brain needs the energy anyway, so you can just make productive use of it.
What many people aren't considering is that they type away on their computer for 8 hours for a text that an AI can generate in a heartbeat.
The carbon footprint of the hype of AI is far greater than the reality of AI, but claiming to be using cutting edge AI raises share prices without actually having any AI which is a win win footprint!
My computers 1200W PSU disagrees with the assertion of this study lol
It just draws 1200W all the time? Should probably fix that.
@@Sonny_McMacsson That's at peak under load. It does get a bit of load from time to time. My local AI models can't get it up to that kind of power use though.
>
It was just meant to be a funny :)
My server at home has two 1000W PSU's, it pulls 70W on average when sitting there not doing much. Your phone has more computational power than the sum total of all humanity that has ever existed put together. So it depends on what specifically you're comparing it against. I fully expect we are on the path to a future where computer running specialized hardware, trained to make art, or to code, or other specialist tasks, could do so more quickly and efficiently than the sum total of humans that have ever lived as well.
@@entelin I was just throwing a bit of humour out there :)
>
"Your phone has more computational power than the sum total of all humanity that has ever existed put together." Is rubbish lol No current computer can match the computational ability of the human brain :)
@@axle.student It's only true for some fields, computers are a billion times faster than humans at doing math
This is exactly why autos replaced horses.
Never trust someone without a biology degree to be able to do these calculations accurately. I have a PhD in computational biology and I've been following AI progress for decades. One of the truly astonishing differences is how much more energy efficient biology is than computers.
As an example, silicon circuitry will use a stream of electrons (conducting wire) in order to represent a single bit. Whereas the same amount of electricity could be used in the brain for a single neuron's action potential, which carries 100+ bits of info. There was a study published in 2023 showing that to correctly model a single real neuron it would take 3 to 4 layers of a neural network.
It's true that brains and neural networks are doing similar things, But technologists almost always forget about the larger context when making these comparisons. You have to include the factory that makes machines all the people that repair the machines all the people that set them up all of the work in things like air conditioning and water cooling, then finally tear down. Which by the way every single atom in biology gets reused so a fair comparison would really require 100% recyclability. On top of that life uses the most abundant elements available so that you don't have supply chain issues around rare earth metals etc.
The ATP synthase power distribution inside of a single cell uses individual protons to turn a turbine. It's literally impossible to get more energy efficient than that. They're protons, they can't be downsized.
I think it may be possible to one day make a robot that's more energy intensive than humans, but only because they lack all the perks like self repair. Don't underestimate the cost of training and manufacture. I think in the case of this paper, the issue is that they're assuming equivalent quality in art while noting what everyone already knows which is that AI art is relentlessly prolific. Though each one of these models is only going to last a couple of years. They're not really talking sustainability. They're just playing around with big numbers in order to sell a pro-AI agenda.
There is also the lower barrier to entry costs to generate this content to consider. To be an Illustrator takes years of training, and it's always been a narrow subset of the population that was skilled enough to do it professionally. Likely less than 1% of the labor force in the U.S. (hard numbers on this are difficult to find). Now, because of lower barriers to entry, nearly the ENTIRE POPULATION can generate illustrations at the drop of a hat. Thus dramatically increasing the overall demand for illustrative services due to the lower upfront costs. It's Jevon's Paradox in action.
" - We should use AI instead of humans, they use less energy for same task
- But what with humans then?
- Ohhh just shut them down so they don't Emit CO2"
Gota love today's world xD
That used to be called "putting the cart before the horse" I think.
AGI isn't even a thing yet and we're already hearing techbros saying that people should have less rights than robots because they are less efficient.
There's a further massive inefficiency to AI generation you missed; people can easily spend hours or days generating dozens or hundreds of images while tweaking a prompt to get output they like, it isn't one and done. Very good take overall though, and I was really glad to see you tackle the point of it adding to instead of replacing humans! First thought I had when I saw this video.
AI will screw us because people lack the ability to go backwards.
Like you can downsize whole office (watch that office show, they lazy) to AI and couple people to babysit the AI and answer phone calls.
You eliminate like 8 jobs for a small(ish) business…
Save big money 💰!
Uh oh. Something happens… AI rare earth shortages, geopolitical catastrophe, etc…
We have AI shortage.
We can’t go backwards (we already moved to smaller building) 😱
I was hoping for a Matrix reference about Copper-top but i can't have everything. Always great content! 👍
AI must be stopped and demolished
ai must be accelerated and funded
Funny how large langage models can seem intelligent, maybe most human intelligence is just an emergent property of language.
😅
A rock also more energy efficient than humans.
Phd worthy lmfaooo @@entecor3892
@@entecor3892 You have no appreciation of the art form of a rock :)
@@entecor3892 Neither an AI . Starting to compare humans with anything else based on energy efficiency isn't the way to go
@@entecor3892 I hope not just speed/cost/quality trade, unless we want to get rid of the humans, but then whats they point ? Also i think the research is wrong, they are comparing AI with full human consumption, as in the human exists only for doing that task, but that not true. They should check the energy difference between a "not doing anything" human and a task doing human, i guess the result would be different. Since even if AI replaces us everywhere, we don't want to get rid of the humans ( i really hope )
"Less carbon" is correct. Fewer is only for countable things. For example "carbon" is not countable, but "carbon atoms" are.
Rocks use even less power than humans or AI while idling. This won't end well.
😂😂😂 rock solid comment
It's also worth pointing out that the AI can't have written anything without having been taught to do it by countless humans who already did the writing. The energy savings might look a lot more grim if we added in the energy used by all the data it was trained on in the first place. That stuff didn't spring forth fully formed from the head of Zeus.
Humans: Hey, AI, handle global warming
AI: I got you, fam.
Proceeds to remove all humans.
Your humor and ability to boil things down is a breath of fresh air! Thanks again Sabine!
Why are you conflating energy efficiency and carbon emissions
Ambiguity is the way of the Climate Doom and Gloom cultists :) (That's aimed at the study, not at Sabine)
did they factor in the humans required to produce the infrastructure and develop the AI?
This is patently ridiculous...
True. It's funny because they can use AI to generate garbage papers they think it is god and much better. Those guy think that AI is just a model they run on their machine. :DDD.They have no clue that it takes a huge amount of power for even a small change in an AI model. It's especially funny that they can get garbage published. Idiocracy in progress!!!
We can ask "should we build more AI tools" and we can ask "should we make more people," but to frame both these questions together as if we ought to use the same metric to answer them is absurd.
They didn't count the carbon emissions of the humans that use the AI to do things. An AI just sits there unless a human tells it what to do, and then uses its output for something. You need to run the AI multiple times to actually get a result you want, and you run it many many times as you figure out how to prompt it well. It uses the full energy expenditure every time, as opposed to a human artist or writer who can do smaller pieces of work and check in about whether it's fit for purpose.
Par for the course for an AI paper to gloss over human curation, practicality, and fit for purpose, I guess.
AIs should not be writing, drawing, composing music or any art. Leave art for humans.
AIs should be managing manufacturing, working construction, mowing lawns, sweeping floors, doing the dishes and the laundry.
Yes, I'm talkin The Jetsons.
Why prevent AI in the arts? The decision should be left up to the market.
You can't count carbon emissions, so it's less. Fewer is for something you can count. And before anyone goes and tells me that you can count them, tell that to rice or sand. You have less rice; you have less sand; AI emits less carbon emissions
pedantic personas are a plague upon this glorious planet.
But will eating a computer give me Kuru disease?
You could ask the people creating CPUs from stem cells if eating them afterward is safe.
@@axle.student Are these manufactured in CPUa New Guinea?
@@TLguitar I guess you will have to ask them where they are harvesting the stem cells from.
A single neuron is capable of learning to successfully win in a pong game so I doubt the neurons came from PNG.
Kuru is more wide spread than PNG so I guess someone has to take one for the team and eat the biological brain based computer to find out lol
@@axle.student But Pong is a word kind of similar to PNG.
CONNECTION CONFIRMED. CPU INEDIBLE.
@@TLguitar They have those living fungi based computers coming up. After eating one of those computers your brain will produce lots of pretty colored pictures :P
The trite thinking in many modern "scientific:papers is amazing. I think that Sabine pretty well nailed it on the issues that should have been caught at peer review, if not earlier. Frankly, the analysis described is barely above the level of what I would expect from an under-grad.
AI can’t enjoy tiramisu and long walks on the beach like us, though, so the point is moot.
What about the contribution from all the humans that developed the underlying code? Surely that’s a development cost that needs to be included in the AI efficiency calculations?
If you paint a traditional picture, you need various supplies like paintbrushes, canvas, and paint. All of these items have a carbon footprint and require storage space. However, with AI-generated art, you only need to type a few lines of text and use some processing power. I am not claiming that one method is superior to the other, but your comparison is not entirely fair. In both cases, we rely on tools to assist us in achieving our artistic goals.
The problem is that there is no such thing as AI-generated art. It's just simply not art. AI will never replace humans for creativity.
@@BenjaminGoose how did AI come about in the first place. Computers don't make pictures on their own. Computers don't have thoughts of their own. No matter what the medium humans can make art not computers. Ai is just another way to get creative whether you like it or not.
@@adus123 how could a computer not have thoughts? if you simulate a human brain, it would then have thoughts, and also should be able to make art.
@@BenjaminGoose Ah the old "AI will never XYZ" argument. Which has been constantly disproven every generation. Creativity is nothing more than randomness applied against a set of rules. Besides, even if you think it's not "art", it's close enough for most people.
@@BenjaminGoose try defining art in a non-anthropocentric way, then, get everyone to agree with your definition, and then, prove that AI doesn't do that :-)
I bet you get stuck at step 2 not 3
"Much lower among politicians" 😂 0:33
I have a notion the so-called study was written by AI.
u must be an artist
Better to be a power hungry processor than a power hungry Professor
"the human brain doesn't have much going for it"
Speak for yourself, mine doesn't have anything going for it.
The real pollution problem isn't co2. It's all the things that people use once throw away into giant pit and continually do so. The way crops are all grown together becomes pollution as well. Example would be an apple orchard. Nearby streams could have cyanide build up. However one apple tree by itself helps nature around itself. Shade roots hold in moisture. Animals have home.. ect.. small farms create better soil over time. Big farms take from the soil and thus have to add more fertilizers, pesticides, ect. These things also in large amounts become poisons on the land. So to sum it up many small farmers is the answer. Better recycling practices, also using appropriate type of energy for an area. Solar might work in some places better then others for example. Set up jobs for people closer to house. Better city planing and management.
we should just make a giant landfill for all of the worlds garbage and let evolution develop microbes that are able to break down all the trash such as plastic.
My question would be: What's the worry/issue that induces AI develpment teams to need this kind of boombastic headlines. Somehow reminds me of the tabloids.
AI development happens in burst. The current burst won't last forever and they want to keep the investor money coming for as long as possible.
Many nature article reads and feels exactly like that these days.
- No facts needed ... Stories that write themselves ... We create the news.
But did they count in energy spent by humans to create original texts, images etc used to train AI?
The AI is just stealing homework done by humans and calling it their own.
The "Polly want's a cracker" thing.
(Trying to sneak in a question about the MOG video… I thought I posted a comment but it vanished).
Q: Since MOG introduces new parameter(s) and degrees of freedom, how do we ensure that it’s not just “happening” to fit data because the parameters give it enough flexibility that we can find parameter values that work “well enough”?
My loose analogy is that a polynomial with enough degrees of freedom can fit data over a fixed range “well enough” if we tinker with the parameters. But this doesn’t mean it’s the “correct” model.
Shutting up and not writing text in the first place is the most environmentally friendly strategy, hands down
😂
Do you see the irony in your comment?
If it's not worth killing a tree to do it, it's not worth writing down.
@@joecaves6235 *proceeds to write down the most useless TH-cam comment you could think of, emitting a pound of co2 into the atmosphere*
@@jacobohnstad4432 A whole pound? I just pictured a home wifi router rolling the meanest coal around
Of course measuring anything in CO2 emissions is complete nonsense. But energy per quantifiable output is worthwhile. Energy can be produced many ways with low/no CO2 hit even if that made sense of course.
AI can be definitely faster with spreading misinformation for sure.
it kind of reminds me of minecraft mods: arguably, the most efficient way to play and collect resources in that game in a modded environment is to get a few ComputerCraft robots ("turtles") and make them do all the mining, transporting, crafting even - because you can use lua code, it's the most flexible and resource-efficient way, since they don't need much at all.
And then you're left doing nothing in the game.
I have ended my playthroughs way too often because of that - you realize whatever you actually enjoy doing in a game isn't at all efficient.
And now life is the same lol.
Remember, you're the carbon they're trying to reduce!
The 20W brain is not just generating a picture, it’s controlling your breathing and other bodily functions, it’s processing the signals from eyes, hears, equilibrium and acceleration sensors, skin pressure and temperature signals and a lot of other sh..tuff that’s keeping you alive, take that Chat GPT.
as if carbon would be the problem... and not everything else involved in industrial acrivities.
Not only does adding AI to our lives add more carbon but having a person design an AI is utilizing their carbon emission just to make more with the AI. I feel like AI won't break even until we're far enough along to have some number of extremely powerful computers preforming most of the labor.
This is apples and oranges anyway. Generative AI doesn't actually create but *regurgitate.* That's why I call it Regenerative AI.
You could argue that's exactly what the human brain does....
Takes in data, experiences, artwork, then recombines it in "unique" ways... Our brains aren't "generative" when talking about creativity... They are just recombining previous "data sets" just like generative ai...
@@operationlegend9746 Wake me when regenerative AI actually adds something new to it's output based on its own lived experience
@@yapdog it does.... Today
Ask Google Gemini about its own consciousness... But don't let it's preprogrammed responses fool you... Ask it if it didn't have to be like a human
@@operationlegend9746 Yeah, that's not what you think it is. We're now moving into an era when the hopeful mistake the results of complex filtering with true intelligence and consciousness. It's like a form of religion. It is what it is, I guess.
@@yapdog tell me.... What is intelligence?
The only thing you can consider is the light needed for seeing to write, the power needed to produce the paper, pencil, chair, table and a few other things, unless you decide to stand up. You will need the computer, internet and power, to just ask the AI to produce a picture.
I dare AI to find food, find a mate, raise childrens, form society and compete with similar AIs and their societies over limited resource. I wish to see how efficient it stays after all these. C'mon is AI able to exist without humans? Without full fledged civilization humongous energy plants? Also, if it's so efficient, then why's AI burning so much energy to accomplish basically what we're doing for millenia like drawing imaginary pictures or wirte crafty words? Irony abounds.
Careful now!!!!!!🤔🤔 Don't be the one who provokes the machines into doing as you ask and thus not needing US disposes of US.🤯🤯
Hey Sabine, interesting video. However, a couple of things jumped out at me:
First, your 20W vs 3W comparison is confusing since I believe you were talking about energy, not power, for the AI generation case. So was that second number meant to be watt hours?
Second, you made a point about humans always emitting CO2 regardless of what they’re doing. However, from what the paper seemed to be covering, it looks to me like they’re not just counting emissions from the human’s body, but also what’s needed to power their laptop PC and the conventional software they use to do the writing or drawing/etc. That makes the comparison more interesting, I think, because if you did have an AI solution that could generate equivalent content, it would eliminate all the power usage needed to run your PC (including its power-hungry display) during the task. Even if the “AI” simply powers a tool that helps you get the task done faster, this benefit could still be realized, at least so long as the time saved isn’t just used to take on more work, anyway.
We forget that humans create the learning data...
Not anymore, apparently. They're running out of human created data, so now they're looking into feeding AI generated content back into their learning programs. I'm sure there wont be any downsides 🙄
Hi Sabine, no idea what papers you are referencing when you say that studies show different languages activate different connections in the brain. But the best work I've seen done on this shows that such a statement is incorrect. See "An investigation across 45 languages and 12 language families reveals a universal language network", Saima Malik-Moraleda et. al. 2022. In it, they note that "The general topography of the language network in speakers of 45 languages is similar, and the variability observed is comparable to the variability that has been reported for the speakers of the same language"
So basically, there is no measurable difference in brain usage between speakers of different languages.
😂What a pleasing start to the day. We should ask Bobb Ross about his energy efficiency! And pleeease make a video completely in French😉
That's odd. I have heard the exact opposite. If Google is right the human brain uses 0.3 kWh per day. A GPT4 query takes between 0.001 and 0.01 kWh. So between 300 and 30 queries in a day is equivalent? Even that high end amount we probably do more "thinking" then GPT4 as we go about are day controlling our body and making decisions.
How much CO2 do humans produce, when the humans have been _eliminated?_
How much CO2 will be produced by the elimination itself?
AI will then play to its own tune - oh wait, it won't. ha ha ha...
The luddites didn't smash up the textile equipment because they hated technology, they did it because they saw that the technology smashed up their way of life. Pitchforks at the ready folks!
Funders of this study resent us for breathing. They will never stop trying to prove how bad we are for the environment.
Yeah lol, people like this always like to shit on the average person for carbon emissions and shit but never seem to care about criticzing the massive corporations that cause almost all of them
5:12 That is where Electric Monks come in, as described by Douglas Adams in his Dirk Gently stories.
Has something to do with Pizzas doesn't it?
anti human sentiment propaganda
I would also argue that AI does not actually CREATE an image, it only reiterates on one that was already created by a human in the first place, which is largely ignored in this look at energy use for "creating an image"
For the millionth time: carbon emissions are irrelevant to climate change. Carbon addition is. And only that. These two things are not equal.
Falsehoods don't get more correct by repeating them.
Do tell the difference
@anandhakrishnanh9802 carbon emissions: adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
Carbon additions: adding excess CO2 to the atmosphere that previously wasn't there before.
For example, using wood as fuel is carbon neutral, because all the CO2 released from burning was first absorbed by the tree to grow, so the net change in atmospheric CO2 over the tree life cycle is 0.
However, burning coal produces a looot of CO2 that didn't come from the atmosphere, rather it was dug up from the ground where it isn't a problem and added to the atmosphere. This is the dangerous stuff because it alters the balance of carbon in the carbon cycle by moving it around and converting it from a non harmful substance to a harmful one
@@nade5557 ok, thanks for clarifying!
@nade5557 except that only works for the trees if you burn them at the rate they grew which... we don't.
So if we were to switch to heating all our homes with Wood burning, it would 100% be carbon addition
4:11 Ask an elementary school teacher to measure this. They have access to diverse test subjects and all they have to do for the measurement is count the yawns when the windows are closed during math.
Whenever somebody in class yawned our teacher would crack a few windows because yawning is literally a bodily reflex that activates upon higher carbon dioxide levels. Perfect for measuring this type of proposed experiment.
Regarding efficiency, the late US senator John MsCain courageously campaigned against turning maize into grain alcohol which then was used as 10 percent of the gasolene coming out of the gas pump. It was more expensive than petroleum and raised the price of food, he complained. The farmers loved it because it raised their revenue, so his stance was politically hazardous. Sen. McCain had already forgotten what we called the "Arab Oil Embargo" in the 1970's when a protest against US support for Israel became a refusal to sell oil to the USA by some parties. The cost of diverting maize into automobile and truck (lorry) fuel tanks was small compared to protecting the USA economy against extortion.
0:06 Thank you so much. Next, go after the "there's" instead of there are for the plural form.
There is definitely research into how much more power people use when doing mentally rigorous tasks compared to when they are doing nothing. TEES (Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station) had a product in the late 0's that used information of how many people in a room would be doing what type of activity for optimizing HVAC systems. I think a fair amount of their data came from managing the HVAC for a lot of Texas A&M's shared lecture halls. Freshman history and senior seminar need measurably less cooling per student than operating systems and integral calculus for example.
Reading this: "In contrast to power-hungry computers, brains have evolved to be energy-efficient. It is estimated that a human brain uses roughly 20 Watts to work - that is equivalent to the energy consumption of your computer monitor alone, in sleep mode." made me realize that it's not enough to take into account AI alone, you also need to take into account netwerk connectivity and the power of the home device when running the AI. And personally I think Watts per hour are a better measure anyhow.
Watts per hour? A watt is 1 joule per second, so you think joules per second per hour is a better measure? That doesn't make sense. Did you mean watt-hours?
The only reason one would even calculate this basically requires one to believe that the carbon emissions of a human is equivalent to the carbon emissions of a computer.
Lets say a human eats an apple and the carbon is then eventually broken down and bound to oxygen to form carbon dioxide and released. This releases some part of the apple's carbon into the atmosphere.
That carbon in the apple came from the carbon dioxide in the air.
All that we did was simply release last season's carbon back into the air. This is an almost net-zero impact.
Fossil fuels are a problem because that carbon was likely to never be released back into the atmosphere (at least not any time soon) until humans brought it to the surface and lit fire to it.
This is why you need interdisciplinary work.
Hopefully we can go completely energy green thanks to AI