Yes, obviously AI is emitting way too much. It shouldn’t even be producing 0.2% of global emissions, let alone 2%. My main grievance is that no one ever talks about improving industrial and agricultural processes even though they produce around 29% of emissions and 20% of emissions respectively.
I eat food, and the food I eat doesn’t just walk to my place.
So… sure I’d rather have a lot less energy spent on agriculture and industry but if there is one place where I feel energy use is legitimate, it’s feeding us.
Meanwhile I do NOT want better tools for scammers, spammers and fake experts.
If you don’t farm, people will starve. If you don’t use AI, billionaires will starve.
OP is obviously sponsored by Altman.
Right, but there is the realistic option where we farm more efficiently.
Because as it is right now, we are farming and we are still starving. Food production is not a problem, In fact we overproduce.
So let’s be more efficient with our food production which will also starve billionaires.
It’s as though your implying that billionaires aren’t people, I like it!
To improve agricultural processes, eat local organic foods. It’s actually quite a large community.
Note that OP is using a bit unrelated title. They’re doing it in case you forget to click their image.
Turn electricity into wind, solar, and nuclear, and you’ll not only shrink electricity’s impact to a sliver, but also bite a chunk out of industry due to removing the need for oil, gas, and coal.
Those two are the biggest global emission contributers.
Agriculture needs to move away from land use and into significantly more GM and vertical farming, “organic” products be damned.
Why do I get a feeling that OP doesn’t talk much to farmers?
Is your point that it’s hopeless to discuss it because farmers are unwilling to adopt new practices or because we’ve maxed out and no progress is possible, quickly revealed by talking to any farmer? Or is it that you believe me unworthy to talk about it because I am among the urban majority? It’s unclear from your line of questioning.
No, OP is a eugenicists like Altman and many others.
99% of the “solutions” to agricultural waste and carbon emissions are proposed with absolutely no input from anyone with even a sliver of experience in farming.
Emissions from AI datacenters offend because of just how unnecessary they are.
Unnecessary power use, unnecessary water.
The kicker is we need agriculture and industry, like it or not. Whereas no one apart from some billionaires and tech bros want or even need AI.
%80 of agriculture is animal feed. Not saying everyone should become vegeterian or vegan but I think the culture that pushes over consumption of animal based products (especially America etc) should be suppressed gradually.
Those percentages don’t really add up to 100, though.
Something like 40% of American corn is used as a feedstock into ethanol fuel production. But that just strips out most of the starches and carbohydrates for fermentation into alcohol. The remaining proteins and fats are used mostly for animal feed. And somewhat surprisingly, the captured CO2 is sold as an industrial CO2 product, such as dry ice. So for that 40% of corn, we could say it’s used for ethanol production. Or we could say it’s used for animal feed. Or other processes. But it’s really all of the above.
Modern American corn and soybean farming is just basically efficiently producing a bunch of bio feedstock into whatever processes can make use of those products, whether for human food, animal feed, industrial processes, etc.
The problem is, the models are really good at some things. We’ve been using these things since before chat gpt hit the market. It’s identified tumors, cured a dog of cancer evidently, and with adversarial training beat the AI that beat the chess master in a matter of hours.
This is one of those disruptive technologies that isn’t going back in the bottle. We’re stuck with this crap.
(Note: I was convinced the dog cancer vaccine thing was bullshit but there’s quite a bit of actual data, a fucking tech bro actually did it.)
I mean sure. But we don’t really need to torture animals, which is the big part of the emissions. We just like it a lot.
Username checks out.
deleted by creator
Don’t forget Bitcoin.
A lot of it comes down to how much people want the product, combined with how easy it is to get rid of carbon emissions in the process. If people are against AI in the first place, it’s easy to get rid of the carbon emissions. Getting rid of the emissions from concrete production is a much more difficult proposition.
I stopped believing in climate change as soon as I started hearing billionaires talk about how we all need to eat bugs and live in pods while they own multiple mansions each with multiple industrial sized AC units on massive plots of land while wasting enough food per day to feed 10 families with 9 people. Also I’m old enough now that I’ve seen several climate doomsdays come and go and the things they said would happen didn’t happen.
About 10 years ago the “climate experts” said that “no matter what we do, sea levels will rise 16 feet” by a point that we’ve passed and it didn’t happen
Did you know the mansion oprah owns in Hawaii is on a plot of land that’s bigger than central park in NYC? And she’s one of the loudest voices talking about how WE all need to reduce our carbon footprints.
“oh but they bought carbon offsets so it’s okay” no, it’s really common people like you and me that paid for that, because those fuckers get to write that off on their taxes, so in the end they didn’t actually pay to reduce any pollution, we did.
They’re never going to give up their mansions or their dozens of cars or their private jets. All this is bullshit to put restrictions on us. So until all these billionaires start practicing what they preach, I’m not going along with it anymore
this is like saying “since rich people have plantations full of slaves I’m not freeing my one house slave until they free all of theirs”
and billionaire use the same logic btw - “sure my super yacht creates massive emissions but my personal emissions are nothing compared to 7 billion people’s emissions - so why should I reduce mine if the masses won’t reduce theirs”
Well in the agricultural sense the only thing we can do is to make more people vegetarian (not really happening)/and make more affordable plant based milk. The latter one is actually in here already! I’ve seen plant based milks not that much more expensive than a cow’s milk in Hungary.
to make more people vegetarian
You don’t necessarily need people to go full vegetarian. Just eating less meat is a much easier sell. If 2 people eat 1/2 as much meat as they otherwise would, that’s just as good as 1 person going full vegetarian.
The type of meat also matters. Beef is much higher in greenhouse gas emissions than any other type of meat. So if you just switch beef for, say, chicken or pork, you’re already doing a lot better.
While switching to plant based food is an obvious course of action which would have drastic benefits, several other methods exist by which agricultural emissions. These include:
- Livestock diet changes to reduce methane production
- More accurate fertilizer application to reduce nitrous oxide production
- Draining rice paddies to reduce production of methane by anaerobic microbes
- No till farming to allow more carbon to be stored in the soil
- Farm equipment electrification
- Crops bred for higher yield or lower resource usage
All are horrible and a problem but what do we get out of these three? Doesn’t take a genius to see something of value in two of them.
well established industry itself seeks efficiency. The emissions are generally from energy use, Energy costs money, they try to find more efficient ways. Stable industries will have already done a lot of innovation to improve efficiency and may even have hit diminishing returns to research once their processes are well understood. Pick any industrial process and you’ll find loads of papers on efficiency at all steps. But at the end of the day if you need to smelt iron ore into high quality pig iron, you’re going to need a lot of heat for a period of time. Best way to reduce industrial GHG emissions is probably to buy less stuff or maybe buy better quality stuff that lasts longer. Not many consumers wan’t to do that though.
Agriculture is weird because we’ve pushed yields up very high with all the fertilizers and monocultures and so on, but i’d think its similar, diminishing returns - and maybe yields have actually been pushed higher than they should for long run soil health, so you might have a viscious cycle of fertilizer development. You could maybe try to shift people to have less meat and more crops, or maybe stuff like seaweed or algae based food, or try to stop them overeating. I feel like the food industry does get a bit of stick for obesity - not that that seems to do much.
Problem with AI is the bubble that means the focus of effort is unlikely to be efficiency; so long as investors are dumb, don’t know what they’re buying and/or speculation oriented then the bang for buck investment (in the short term) is to generate hype. They’d gladly burn energy, to generate more hype to, borrow more, to buy more energy , to generate more hype, to borrow more . . . all the while they’re ‘crowding out’ boring established investments in well understood processes.
I wouldn’t say that the emissions are all from energy use. Cement and steel making both directly emit CO2 (From coke or calcium carbonate), which makes up a significant portion of global emissions.
