Because this is what we need to be focusing on, not environmental responsibility from large polluters.
We are continually approving oil, gas, and coal projects, yet let’s focus on the contradiction of environmentalists existing in a system where their very existence causes them to emit, regardless of how careful their choices.
Don’t worry about this, it’s fine
It’s just sitting there menacingly next to the Athabasca river.
This meme has strong, “Any environmentalist that doesn’t unalive themselves, isn’t trying hard enough.” vibes.
This is whataboutism.
It’s more like a false dilemma, claiming we can only focus on or solve one or the other. Our largest focus should be the largest polluters as mentioned, but it’s also ok to want to challenge the use of AI in messaging about social action.
It’s not an issue of focus, but cohesion and messaging. Focusing on internal moral purity alienates people and divides us against the larger enemy.
You again🤺
You are in favour of purity of focus
Is focus not rival?
I disagree with you, and @relianceschool@slrpnk.net - respectfully.
I’m not trying to detract from AI’s issues, or insist that we can only address one issue at a time. However, if I was given $100 Million to address these issues, I’d be investing 99 millon into dealing with water, land, and mining related issues, as those can have immediate effects. Emissions are such a hard one to address, since it requires buy in from literally everyone (look how hard that was with COVID, and people were dying right there and then due to it). Regulating and reducing AI emissions seems a lower priorty to me compared to things like better O&G regulation which are likely to have larger impacts on overall emssions.
I don’t disagree with you. I said fighting pollution should be the number one priority. That should in fact take all the money. But it’s also possible to call out a journalist or publisher or activist in their comments or social media or with an email or whatever if you want to challenge their use of AI. I never said we should spend a bunch of money on what I think is just a personal action, which is why I think it’s a false dilemma.
How has this got anything to do with a meme community that makes memes?
Some people seem to think we can only operate as a hivemind
Lol 100%
I mean, iOS produces them on-device 😂
And how much CO2 was produced training the AI that was put on your device? How many slaves spent how many hours generating data to train that AI? How many slaves cut down how many forests to extract the materials that how many slaves turned into the chips that ran the training process?
And how much CO2 was produced training the AI that was put on your device?
I mean, fuck Apple and fuck AI. But at some point “I noticed your picture was rendered with software that uses electricity that may have come from a fossil fuel power source, so I’m going to disregard environmentalism carte blanche” is just reactionary anti-environmentalist rhetoric couched in smug liberalist language.
If only he didn’t generate that image! I can’t believe he made Apple generate that whole model!
I actually don’t know, how much was it?
I’m unsure about that. But seeing how stupid it is, and knowing that Apple produces green energy through Apple Energy LLC, I suspect not enough CO2 was produced 😂 /s
Ok, here’s my perspective. I hate Gen-AI (specifically and solely the generative kind), I think in nearly 100% of its use cases there are more effective and more ethical solutions. Its really sketchy to me for any artist to be using or supporting AI with/in their work. My understanding is that while training the AI does take significant server farm work (on a similar scale to like, storing the data for streaming video), the actual AI model produced is relatively small, and therefore doesn’t take that much energy to run. So, good on them for doing environmental work, my hangups will entirely be on the ethical side of their AI usage.
I’m with you on more ethical solutions being available, but efficient? In turns of total energy usage required to go from (often unethically acquired) training data to a manifestation of a prompt as an image, maybe.
But regarding the effort and efficiency when purely generating an image? I think not.
There is a person on Lemmy running GenAI models locally (on their own machines) using solar power, and honestly, that’s totally fine by me. I’m also fine with a DM generating some art for their next hombrew game they run with a couple of friends.
Acquisition of training data and the environmental impact of data centers (not only for AI usage) are still problems to be solved, though.
Ok, I didn’t say efficient, I said effective. I said AI images are less effective than manually created ones, and I stand by that. Honestly, if that guy is sourcing his data ethically, more power to him.
Alright, that one is on me half-assing my reading. I’m with you on effectiveness.
My understanding is that while training the AI does take significant server farm work (on a similar scale to like, storing the data for streaming video), the actual AI model produced is relatively small, and therefore doesn’t take that much energy to run
Yeah, you can run most models on a mildly powerful gaming computer and be able to generate images
My rig actually takes less power to Gen images than it does to run some games on Max settings
Honestly, any blog claining to be informative qhile usung AI thumbnails makes me extremely wary. If they can’t even find a stock photo, who’s to say they did any research, or worse, just wrote the entire article with gen ai
Agreed
deleted by creator
Stock images can be used over and over and over and over…
deleted by creator
Isn’t the whole thing about AI that it generates “bespoke” images on demand rather than pulling from a prearranged catalog?
deleted by creator
You can “bespoke” abstract reusable image if you want.
But the AI output engine doesn’t.
maintaining a catalog with a huge amount of “not quite fit but might be good enough images” isn’t free either
It is significantly cheaper and less energy intensive than generating new images on demand. That’s before you get into AI images as the same quality of “not quite fit but might be good enough images”
Mental gymnastics
deleted by creator
We can admit that that is not the appeal of AI image generation and does/will not happen very often
A human drawing a thumbnail in 15 minutes consumes 0.025 kWh. An AI creating an image consumes between 0.06 and 0.3 kWh, so between 3 and 12 times as much. Both have massive supply chains that go into producing and maintaining them.
I don’t really have a horse in this race eitherway, but what about finding a person who can draw a decent looking thumbnail in 15 minutes? Probably that’s gonna be using various webservices such as fiverr or something along the way?
But the whole idea of comparing them is kinda funny. As if that human would just be turned off and not consuming any energy if they weren’t making a thumbnail for your blog. Though maybe they’ll make a cup of coffee they wouldn’t have otherwise before getting to work. You never know!
15 minutes is crazy fast and assumes they just get exactly what they want first go. You need to factor in running your PC using Photoshop or equivalent, which is fairly resource intensive, sustained over what is realistically 40-60 minutes at best, sourcing assets from servers which are using energy to serve the images. Compared with AI which has high usage for sure but it’s extremely short bursts.
I can make a GenAI image on my PC in 3 seconds. 0.06 kWH is outrageously wrong.
Photography exists!
Are you saying paying a photographer to travel and take a photo uses less resources?
You’re doing very complex mental gymnastics just to simp for AI friend
Well, no. I’m just unwilling to handwave the associated costs like you are.
deleted by creator
For me the problem with AI generated thumbnails in any environmental or scientific blog is that it makes me doubt the whole text might be a AI Hallucination and I just immediately click out.
AI images just kill all credibility for me.
It goes double if they’re using generated infographics with garbled text. There was clearly zero proofreading, and that absolutely means the article wasn’t fact checked either.
The bar is so low, it’s underground, and they’re still tripping over it.
Cleantechnica moment.
Big time
Also when they’re not vegan.
As long as they’re reducing their meat intake that’s ok with me :) I say that as a non-vegan who has greatly reduced my meat intake
