- cross-posted to:
- degrowth@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- degrowth@slrpnk.net
You must log in or register to comment.
They want to become carbon neutralbut climate crisis is already running.
Feels like build „don’t smoke here“ - signs in our forests while they are burning.
But people from those countries must also be using Google and Microsoft
Not just people, but importantly also corporations running their services on Microsoft azure or Google cloud.
Are we talking consumed for their own use? Or consumed as part of delivering cloud services to their customers?
These are very different things. The former would be horrifying the latter would be misleading in the extreme.
I think it is the customers who pay for the electricity that they use? Las time I checked MS didn’t pay anything in my electric bill.
For software and devices running locally, sure. Much of what MS does these days is cloud based where the bulk of the electricity is being used in a data center somewhere and the customer isn’t (directly) paying for it.
No matter which way you correctly read the headline, it’s false.
You can either read it as Google and microsoft individually consumed more electricity than these 100 countries did (false, it’s Google and microsoft combined)
OR Google and Microsoft combined consimed more than these 100 countries did total.
Did an intern write this or something?
CoPilot with Gemini plugin did.
Hm. Maybe it’s ambiguity is there to maximise clicking on the article?
In 2023, Microsoft and Google consumed 48 TWh of electricity (24 TWh each).
Each of them separately.
Sun consumes 100000000000+ countries power. We have to do something!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Generative AI is taking the world by storm, and its impact is evident across all sectors, including medicine, education, music, computing, and more.
According to a detailed analysis by Michael Thomas, this surpasses the power consumption of over 100 nations, including Ghana, Tunisia, and more (via Tom’s Hardware).
Some of the downsides to advancements in the AI landscape include the degradation of the environment, however, Google and Microsoft are big on renewable energy and have been championing the campaign while seeking alternative power sources.
Elon Musk claimed we’re on the verge of the biggest technology breakthrough with AI, but there won’t be enough power by 2025.
Sam Altman has been exploring a potential alternative power source for OpenAI’s AI efforts, with nuclear fusion at the top of his list.
While nuclear fusion seems like the perfect solution for AI’s power needs due to its non-existent impact on the environment, scientists and researchers say it’s “too late to deal with the climate crisis” and view fission and renewable energy as better options.
The original article contains 449 words, the summary contains 169 words. Saved 62%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
and how much of that is energy that’s essentially used to run other companies, by way of their cloud services? I imagine that’d be a pretty substantial amount.
To be fair, that level of centralization in the hands of a for-profit corporation is worrisome too. They’ll lure in small businesses and then enshittify.
They’ll lure in small businesses and then enshittify.
I’m not so sure… These “cloud” services are paid services they make a lot of money from, and it’s a huge industry with a very large number of competitors (practically all major hosting services, and even a lot of smaller ones).
Many countries don’t use a lot of electricity, especially those where the grids are spotty or in poor repair, or the overall population is small. Even without the AI garbage, I’d expect large tech-sector companies to use more energy than many countries.
(In other words, the headline for this was really poorly chosen. “Microsoft and Google pour more electricity into AI than 100+ countries use” might have gotten a bit closer to the actuall point, if it’s actually true.)
Microsoft and Google pour more electricity into AI than 100+ countries use" might have gotten a bit closer to the actuall point, if it’s actually true
From what I can tell, the article is talking about total electrical use, not just AI.
Also probably ignoring the fact that some of their data centers have practically the entire roof covered in solar panels, Microsoft is investing in nuclear energy, etc.
That is a big probably.
But we will soon have AGI, and then you can have your very own JARVIS! Don’t you like Iron Man? Don’t you like super heroes? Don’t you like sci-fi? /s
Wake me up when AI can simulate my brain. Literally, run me.exe and let me know.
Bitcoin is estimated to consume 172 TWh, which is way more than Google and Microsoft combined.
Yes, bitcoin is trash. But most modern cryptos use far less energy. For example the second largest crypto ethereum uses almost no energy compared to bitcoin/AI..
“AI” can not say the same at all. And, unlike crypto, there’s no realistic improvement in sight. It just keeps getting worse.
PoS requires significant staker profits to work, which would create the same inequality as the dollar has. It’s basically dollar bonds but without regulations.
172 TWh per year
Your statement was as useful as the following: A VW Polo car costumes 3000 liters of fuel.
In 2023, Microsoft and Google consumed 48 TWh of electricity (24 TWh each).
Your point?
The comment was 172TWh without specifying a timeframe whatsoever. Is it a year? Is it a day? A month?
It was about the comment about bitcoin, not the post itself.
That’s the same timeframe as the one used in the article, and sure, they could have made it explicit again, but implicitly it makes sense because it’s the one that’s useful for a direct comparison.
Turns out, the implicit timeframe that should be clear after reading the article was the right one, and it’s pretty damning for bitcoin as is. So again, I am not sure what point you want to make.
I’m on the side of Retiring@lemmy.ml here, since I read the comments before the article. Without the articles’ context I had no idea if this meant all-time usage, per year, or per month.
Since the link is right there though, which says per year, it’s really not a huge deal.
So, is Watt-hours/unit-time no longer a meaningful unit?
Because, if so, you better tell every power company I’ve had, because that’s how they’ve billed me.
WattHours is a unit of work. If you say that bitcoin uses x amount of Wh it doesn’t say shit about how much it actually consumes. Because you don’t say in what amount of time Bitcoin uses said amount of work, you cannot compare it. I could state, that Bitcoin uses 5 Wh. Which would also be correct.
Its the same as saying, Bob eats 5 apples. Alice eats 2000 apples. Can you compare the two? No, because what I forgot to mention is, that Bon eats 5 apples a week and Alice eats 2000 apples in 3 years. Now i can compare the two.
Do you get my point?
In 2023, the two tech companies
The article is also about per year
Yes it is. But your comment still doesn’t make sense until you add “per year”.
