• 58008
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    213
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    At least they have an AI-free option, as annoying as it is to have to opt into it.

    On a related note, it’s hilarious to me that the Ecosia search engine has AI built in. Like, I don’t think planting any number of trees is going to offset the damage AI has done and will do to the planet.

    • Electricd@lemmybefree.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Like, I don’t think planting any number of trees is going to offset the damage AI has done and will do to the planet.

      That’s true for pretty much everything, so not a real argument

        • UnspecificGravity@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          I want to know what economic forces are making it so that having AI, which costs money and very few users actually want, such a forgone conclusion. Who is paying them?

            • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              All these MBAs that learned about the advantage of first movers in school and have so little domain knowledge they operate 100% on “we just cant be late to the table”

        • Leon@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          24 hours ago

          Climate intelligence. Gods, excuse me while I go fetch my skeleton that was ejected from my body due to the cringe.

      • NewDay@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        Ecosia produces its own green solar energy. According to them, they produce twice as much as they consume. The AI is still shit, because it is just ChatGPT.

        • morto@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          Reducing the albedo of some area just to disperse the captured energy for no utility (ai) is still harmful to the environment and contributes to earth’s energy imbalance. Solar energy is great when it replaces fossil fuel emissions, not when it’s just wasted.

        • Mwa@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          hot take: this comment gives me a idea for them a opt-in AI powered entirely by solar energy if we solve the ethics problem first ofc.

      • Bio bronk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        I don’t get this argument when literally everything else is hundreds of times worse like lifestock and cars. Removing either one today would dramatically change the environment.

        Do you drive a car or take any kind of transportation?

    • Sockenklaus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Well, I don’t know about that.

      My swiss hoster just started offering AI and says that their AI infrastructure is 100 % powered by renewables and the waste heat is used for district heating.

      You could argue that LLM training in itself used so much energy that you’ll never be able to compensate for the damage, but I don’t know. 🤷

      • PixxlMan
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        While good, you should always keep in mind that using renewables for this means that power can’t be used for other purposes, meaning the difference has to be covered by other sources of energy. Always bear in mind that these things don’t exist in a vaccum. The resources they use always mean resources aren’t used elsewhere. At worst this would mean that new clean power is built to power a waste, and then old dirty power has to be used for everything else, instead of being replaced by clean energy.

        • MBM@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yeah that reminds me of the data centres hogging green energy that was meant for households

        • Demdaru
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          On the other hand…the same private entity wouldn’t buy the means to produce renewable power if they didn’t want to power their AI center. So in the ends, nothing changes, and the power couldn’t be used for other purposes because it simply wouldn’t be generated.

          However, as they did and are using it to promote themselves, they are influencing others to also adopt renewable energy policy in a way, no matter how small.

          No, normally I am not that optimistic, but I am trying ^^"