The article opens with a comparison to cryptocurrency energy use. I find this to be a poor comparison, because the use-cases for generative AI seem much more apparent to me. In any case...

What other areas widely use a lot of power that people don't complain about? I wonder how much energy the adult video industry uses?

Is the problem that these companies are willing to abandon their 'pledges' so readily for some more money? Then hold them accountable.

The problem is that environmental costs are externalized. That means that damage, generally speaking, and the cost to repair, mitigate, or avoid it, are not factored in to the operating costs and pricing of goods and services that cause such damage.

Cap and trade as attempted, didn't actually fix this (as its proponents claimed). Instead, it created a way to kick the can down the road, and created a temporary carbon Ponzi scheme.

To be clear, I do agree with you, but my point is that directing these frustrations at "AI" technology doesn't make sense.

We should focus on less harmful energy production rather than limiting energy use and inhibiting progress

Unfortunately our record so far is:

"I'll just have another ice cream and then go for a run later".

We need to do the inverse or we will end up being too fat (or dead) to run.

Nice colors, black text on a black background. Luckily lynx was able to format it correctly. But the article was interesting in spite of its colors.

a couple of quotes taken out of context:

>despite its previous promises to hit net-zero emissions by 2030

>carbon goal was set before the generative AI moment

1.5C is a pipe dream now, IIRC, CO2 increased in 2023 and will probably increase in 2024. I expect we will be extremely lucky to stay under 3C.

At least in the US, the politicians in one party just talks about it and does a little bit to try and avoid it. And when it looks like Oil prices will hurt their re-election chances, starts doing all it can to get oil prices down.

The other party ignores it completely and sticks their head in the sand. The end result, good luck to the young :(

In the US, for climate change only, it does not matter who gets elected. One party may slow the race to 4C down, the other party it is "5C here we come while driving our hummers into the sunset".

I pretty thoroughly disagree with the premise of this, but I'm not sure why it was dead. Vouched.

The climate disaster is that we are still not using fusion energy or recycled atomic energy.

We are using fusion energy. All the time.

From the most unbelievably efficient reactor known to exist.