Article: Is generative AI a tool for creative empowerment and efficiency—or a threat to creative professions? OpenAI CTO Mira Murati isn't worried about such potential negative impacts, suggesting during a talk this month that if AI does kill some creative jobs, those jobs were perhaps always replaceable.
...
"Some creative jobs maybe will go away, but maybe they shouldn't have been there in the first place," the CTO said of AI's role in the workplace.
Is the purpose of commercial art the result, or the process?
Granted on text (although the garlic oil neurotoxin suggest that they can selfpoison perfectly well), but in my opinion I think image poisoning is a relatively new field of technology that could potentially advance quite rapidly. We're probably at the 'I Love You' levels of malware in images in my opinion.
Memes are sufficient to poison text, as are jokes. As can be seen by the google AI's various "what the fuck?" moments.
You probably can't poison text without making it useless to humans, but that's a price we've been imposing on ourselves for decades anyway!
Article: Google's greenhouse gas emissions have surged 48 percent in the past five years due to the expansion of its data centers that underpin artificial intelligence systems, leaving its commitment to get to "net zero" by 2030 in doubt.
The Silicon Valley company's pollution amounted to 14.3 million tonnes of carbon equivalent in 2023, a 48 percent increase from its 2019 baseline and a 13 percent rise since last year, Google said in its annual environmental report on Tuesday.
...
Chief sustainability officer Kate Brandt said the company remained committed to the 2030 target but stressed the "extremely ambitious" nature of the goal.
"We do still expect our emissions to continue to rise before dropping towards our goal," said Brandt.
She added that Google was "working very hard" on reducing its emissions, including by signing deals for clean energy. There was also a "tremendous opportunity for climate solutions that are enabled by AI," said Brandt.
Do we really need receipts to not make the obvious connection that integrating an unnecessary computation-hungry extra step into your main product with like a billion daily users will inflate your power bill?
That's not really how that works, no. Computers don't just eat water!
Yes. Obviously yes. That's how evidence-based reasoning works.
Article: That chart shows worldwide data center energy usage growing at a remarkably steady pace from about 100 TWh in 2012 to around 350 TWh in 2024. The vast majority of that energy usage growth came before 2022, when the launch of tools like Dall-E and ChatGPT largely set off the industry's current mania for generative AI.
500 ml for between 5 and 50 prompts in 2023, which includes an estimate of water consumed at the power plant providing the energy. Still an order of magnitude or two higher than a Google search. We don't have details on their 2024 offerings like GPT-4o, but it's suspected to be far more efficient (quantized, possibly MoE architecture) based on lessons learned from 3.5 and 4. Which makes sense - Microsoft is the one who has to pay for that usage.
I wasn't really counting the power plant, as you'd normally slot that in with the power production question, though that definitely does require expending water. Very little water should evaporate from the cooling in the data center - those are not open air systems.
All of the numbers we're quoting are counting the power plant, therefore so was I. As for the data centers, some of them just discharge wastewater, but others definitely do use evaporative cooling.
www.google.com
