this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
345 points (95.0% liked)

Technology

60052 readers
4115 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

AI’s voracious need for computing power is threatening to overwhelm energy sources, requiring the industry to change its approach to the technology, according to Arm Holdings Plc Chief Executive Officer Rene Haas.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta all together could not get anything done as companies

Google's biggest revenue stream is advertisement

Amazon's biggest revenue stream is data hosting for national militaries and police forces.

Microsoft's biggest revenue stream is subscriptions to software that was functionally complete 20 years ago

Meta's biggest revenue stream is ads again

So 72-TWh of energy spent on Ads, Surveillance, Subscriptions, and Ads.

Absolute power consumption does matter, but global power consumption is approximately 160,000 TWh

If these firms were operating steel foundries or airlines at 72-TWh, I would applaud them for their efficiency. Shame they're not producing anything of material value.

The more context I add in to the picture, the less I’m worried about AI in particular.

Its not for you to worry about. The decision to rapidly consume cheap energy and potable water is entirely beyond your control. Might as well find a silver lining in the next hurricane.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

So 72-TWh of energy spent on Ads, Surveillance, Subscriptions, and Ads.

Capitalism truly does end up with the most efficient distribution of resources

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I don't like these companies for their cooperation/friendly attitude towards nation-states either, but your comments are insipid. AWS has like 2 million businesses as customers. They have 30% marketshare in the cloud space, of course they provide cloud services to cops and militaries. They're cheap, and one of the biggest providers, period. I can't find any numbers showing their state contracts outweigh their business contracts.

And, sure, plenty of those business contracts are for businesses that don't do anything useful, but what you don't seem to understand is that telecoms is vital to industry and literally always has been. It's not like there's a bunch of virtuous factories over here producing tons of steel and airplanes, and a bunch of computers stealing money over there. Those factories and airlines you laud are owned by businesses, who use computers and services like AWS to organize and streamline their operations. Computers are a key part of why any industry is as productive as it is today.

AI, and I don't so much mean LLM's and stable diffusion here, even if they are fun and eye-catching algorithms, will also contribute to streamlining operations of those virtuous steel foundries and airlines you approve so heartily of. They're not counterposed to each other. Researchers are already making use of ML in the sciences to speed up research. That research will be applied in real-world industry. It's all connected.

Its not for you to worry about. The decision to rapidly consume cheap energy and potable water is entirely beyond your control. Might as well find a silver lining in the next hurricane.

By the same token, you shouldn't worry about it either? So insipid.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

AWS has like 2 million businesses as customers.

None of them hold a candle to the Wild and Stormy Cloud Computing contact issued by the NSA.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I don't like defending Amazon, but your arguments are shockingly ignorant. Stop making things up on the spot and do a shred of research. The cost of the Wild and Stormy contract is ~half a billion, while AWS's annual revenues are projected to top $100 billion this year.

So, less than half a percent of AWS's annual revenues. Stop just making shit up off the cuff.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The cost of the Wild and Stormy contract is ~half a billion

It's ten billion.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

If you do the numbers out on that, the volume doubles to 1% of gross revenues over that time period. Not really bolstering the point you were trying to make here, but you did catch me merely skimming the article because of how dull and bad this conversation is. This conversation is pointless because at the end of the day, AI is literally just a potentially very useful tool, which is why everybody's freaking out about it. Being against AI as such just because bad people are also using it is kind of pointless.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

the volume doubles to 1% of gross revenues

One contract from one state agency worth 1% of all your gross revenues is substantial.

you did catch me merely skimming the article because of how dull and bad this conversation is

Uh huh. Okay.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, you were trying to argue AWS is basically for the NSA and cops. That hilariously false claim is what I've been consistently rebutting this entire time. You're moving the goalposts and continuously have this entire conversation, which is why this is a dull and bad conversation. You didn't start out arguing that 1% is "substantial." You made a rather different argument. I never disputed that a contract amounting to 1% of a company's annual revenues is significant, I disputed that that 1% means AWS is just a cop shop. Because that's not how anything works.

You were wrong, and you were making shit up, and you're moving the goalposts to avoid having to admit being wrong.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

My guy, you're arguing with yourself at this point. At the least, learn to read your own material before you try to fact check someone.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I usually do, when the other person in the conversation doesn't seem like an insincere ass and I'm not looking up an open and shut factual question I already know the answer to, like "is the majority of AWS's business from cops and the NSA?"

And I was off by like half a percent because I skimmed, and that half a percent doesn't actually make your point for you. We're not arguing because you have no arguments