- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Not a single acknowledgement of the environmental or cognitive costs of LLM use. Disgusting.
Linus is not a very progressive guy. Alas, it is what it is. Hence the political bans in the LKML, who has votes in The Linux Foundation, where such foundation is based, the embracing of (Rust based) permissive licensing of drivers, and now this AI bullshit. Linux is not GNU.
I’m pretty sure the money talked, and in the next few years we’re going to see walls being put around the kernel. We should rethink whether the ‘benevolent’ part of ‘benevolent dictator’ still applys.
IIRC Linus is self-declared as “woke”. The exact quote is:
I’m a card-carrying atheist, I think a woman’s right to choose is very important, I think that “well regulated militia” means that guns should be carefully licensed and not just randomly given to any moron with a pulse, and I couldn’t care less if you decided to dress up in the “wrong” clothes or decided you’d rather live your life without feeling tied to whatever plumbing you were born with. And dammit, if that all makes me “woke”, then I think anybody who uses that word as a pejorative is a f*cking disgrace to the human race.
Ah, the liberal progressiveness. Not the seizing the means of production for the proletariat kind. My bad, I wasn’t being fully open in my past comment because I know the world ‘socialism’ triggers many in the technology bubble.
You can run a local LLM capable of assisting in software development for less energy than running a AAA video game. I’m not denying the environmental impact of the current AI landscape, but I kind of disagree that it’s intrinsic to LLMs as a whole, I think it’s more a symptom of capitalism and its disregard for sustainability causing everything it touches to have a high environmental cost.
Also, nearly all modern computing has high environmental costs, certainly all cloud computing. I think instead of focusing on AI only, it would be more helpful to engage in a broader discussion on how computing can be made more energy efficient as a whole, and do proper cost benefit analysis of all things we use computers for, including but not limited to LLMs. We may well still conclude from that process that we need to stop using LLMs, in which case we should.
If you’re against LLM use on environmental grounds (which I’m not disagreeing with), I submit to you that we should take the idea even further and things like gaming, video streaming, high frequency trading, social media, and any other nonessential computing should be on the same chopping block for the same reason. Applications of computing that we also use at scale with high environmental impacts, but that have been normalised and practically seen as a right by many of the same people against any amount of AI use (not saying that’s you, speaking generally). Why should AI be the only thing we raise concerns about if we’re to raise concerns? Doing environmental protection piecemeal by independently targeting single things and not the entire system has been shown time and time again to not work at best and make it worse at worst.
You’ll hear no arguments from me. Let’s cut energy usage for a lot of things. Let’s read books more. Let’s spend more time outside. Let’s eat less red meat.
That isn’t some gotcha you think it is. A lot of people finding the alarm over AI have been working to reduce their carbon footprint
Currently, LLMs impact on electricity usage and fresh water usage across the world is HUGE.
The painful part to me is the choice on where to put the stress. Which areas to highlight and talk about.
Yes some weak LLMs can use comparatively little electricity. Yes some other industries use electricity, generate CO2 and consume fresh water, too. But the existence of other problems, to me, does not mean that eco impact of LLMs should be swept under the rug.
Fresh water usage has been debunked. It’s fake propaganda. Datacenter water usage is a rounding error if you compare it to the whole economy. This is why you’ll always hear absolute numbers from these people, and never percentages
So, if one was to check your post history, they would find complaints about the energy usage of video games? The water usage of golf courses?
Or would we find neither, and learn instead that anti-AI is the only bandwagon you’ve hopped on because it is the most popular?
I’ll skip discussions about my persona. But most certainly golf courses or video games have orders of magnitude lower impact on electricity and watee than worldwide LLMs (mostly in datacenters).
You would be mistaken.
Data Centers use about 0.06% of the USAs total Water per year.
Watering golf courses in total uses about 0.5 percent.
My personal hardware that hosts my AI uses zero water. It uses more electricity when running a game.
There are more video gamers than there are users of AI.
Your persona is indeed just jumping on the popular bandwagon.
Hot Take: IMO, using generated code is fine, if it goes through the exact same due diligance as normal code. (unit tests, is the algo optimised, etc.)
Only if you don’t care about your own cognitive decline, property theft, and climate damage
the destruction of the consumer electronics market …
Only if you don’t care about your own cognitive decline
That sounds like Socrates’ argument that writing would weaken people’s memories.
And absolutely, people will probably forget the syntax by heart if they don’t type it as frequently. Personally, knowing syntax is not very valuable to me, as it’s just a means to an end. And whether that leads to cognitive decline or not, is really up to who’s using the tool.
Saying it leads to cognitive decline is saying you can’t use an LLM and have critical thinking, which I can’t agree with.
Firmly agree. I spent 6 years coding in python as a daily language, then I swapped to using nodejs for 10 years, only using python on and off. I went to make a basic script with python the other day and I had to look up how to convert a set over to a list.
If you don’t use it, you lose it is fully valid.
That sounds like Socrates’ argument that writing would weaken people’s memories.
Saying it leads to cognitive decline is saying you can’t use an LLM and have critical thinking, which I can’t agree with.
That’s not me saying it. MIT, Harvard, and others have released numerous studies that show using LLMs does exactly that, reduce critical thinking. You can disagree all you want but until you do the science you’re disagreeing with a growing body of actual experts.
Are those studies in the context of software development? What are the tasks at hand? Do they evaluate critical thinking on matters that people actually care about or on chores? Were they instructed to use LLMs in a particular way that is equivalent to their personal preference?
You can’t pull a wildcard saying something like that because it’s too broad of a conclusion.
This is where you go look at any of the studies and start figuring out for yourself.
They’ve been looking at it in several contexts including software development, general problem solving, reading comprehension, writing ability, and more.
In some they were instructed to use LLMs certain ways, in others they weren’t. That’s the neat thing about so many studies being done is they’ve used a wide set of methodologies.
Socrates didn’t have access to modern science. This shit rots your brain.
Programmers already spend about as-much of their time, if not more, reading other’s code as they do writing their own. It doesn’t mater if that “other’s code” is AI generated or not.
There’s an argument to be made about excessive vs not-enough commenting, but that’s not where you went, and its clear you have negligible programming experience, or creative experience for that matter, to be coming after the concept of sharing code like-so.
One wonders how many books you’ve read, to be pretending that reading a book without paying for it, even borrowing from a library, is theft. Stick with the environmental costs arguments - its what you are personally suited to argue, and far more urgent than the rest.
Programmers already spend about as-much of their time, if not more, reading other’s code as they do writing their own.
And how is this an argument in favor of AI code? If 5-10 percent of you job used to be writing code and now you dropped it by half, that’s not very effective of optimization. Especially if the code you now have to review takes more time to review due to it being generated by AI.
and its clear you have negligible programming experience, or creative experience for that matter, to be coming after the concept of sharing code like-so.
As someone with several years of experience as a programmer: fuck off with this elitist nonsense
and its clear you have negligible programming experience, or creative experience for that matter, to be coming after the concept of sharing code like-so.
As someone with several years of experience as a programmer: fuck off with this elitist nonsense
Well said. Bit of a Straw Man, there.
Lol. Way to show how little you know. I swear AI bros get the most butt hurt over provable stuff.
I’ve stated my experience elsewhere but I’m a senior software engineer, 20 something years of experience. I have actually created a neural network from the ground up for a previous company. But sure, go off about how little experience I have.
So you helped create the problem, only so you could show it to be a problem, then turn around and sell us the solution, eh?
Between the two of us, you are literally the AI bro. Eating your own shit and calling it gourmet. I’ve stayed the fuck away from the software industry, let-alone AI, my entire life because I grew-up with and around would-be authoritative rent-seekers like you.
20 something years of software-industry experience is still mostly copying/rehashing the work of those who came before - you didn’t create shit, just re-packaged it in a way your company could sell.
The ground-up? Gotta go a lot further back than 20 years to claim that. Your name’s not on the patents or textbooks, so by your arguments, you’ve stolen every bit of it you ever consumed and then turned-around and applied, and since you didn’t invent it yourself you can’t even really understand it.
Again, that’s your argument because you can’t concieve of the idea that something you “created” off the work of those who came before you could ever approach the understanding you must claim certainty of to speak with such authority.
One of us wants to turn off the money-printing machine because its un-sustainable. You, however would rather focus on the insanity that is Intellectual Property Rights. Our taxes paid for all of that shit.
I pay authors, artists, musicians, and yes, I buy software, even knockoff stuff when its less enshittified than the original has become. I’ll bet you’re more afraid of AI realizing the burden en-shittification creates than you are even slightly concerned about anyone going un-paid for original code.
All I’ll say before moving on is legitimately you should maybe go touch grass.
Neural network does not mean LLM. I’m strongly against them for so many reasons. This is the problem with calling it all AI. My stuff was not generative, it was pattern recognition for a safety program for testing so companies could be held accountable.
Just step outside and smell the roses before you have a heart attack.
And what will you say when 80% of all climate saving technology gets invented using AI?
This is like saying you should dig with bare hands even though drilling machines have been invented.
Drilling machines are not made by forcibly kidnapping diggers and making them motion-capture their movements for a robot that pollutes and consumes water by ignoring previous green regulations.
The first robot is going to be shit. Eventually we will have a robot that will have less climate impact so much so that a human would be more load on climate and more polluting. Where will you take all your hate then? Should human diggers be illegal?
Training and LLM using your code isn’t same as kidnapping you. Your freedom of movement still exists during and after LLM gets trained.
I agree they should pay full fines and maybe a temporary ban due to and proportional to their crime. And so should Taylor Swift and every other celebrity causing disproportionately more pollution.
LLM and AI is the inevitability now. You and I better prepare for a world where we can sell skill even after AI.
It’s not all bad - that shouldn’t discount their crime punishment, but it will go and discover next billion things about human body operation and will make you healthy and strong and will cure cancer, make us far more environmentally friendly than what humans can ever hope of achieving without AI and LLMs.
I feel like people parroting these tropes uncritically are the ones who should be worried about their own cognitive decline.
