When you picture the tech industry, you probably think of things that don’t exist in physical space, such as the apps and internet browser on your phone. But the infrastructure required to store all this information – the physical datacentres housed in business parks and city outskirts – consume massive amounts of energy. Despite its name, the infrastructure used by the “cloud” accounts for more global greenhouse emissions than commercial flights. In 2018, for instance, the 5bn YouTube hits for the viral song Despacito used the same amount of energy it would take to heat 40,000 US homes annually.

This is a hugely environmentally destructive side to the tech industry. While it has played a big role in reaching net zero, giving us smart meters and efficient solar, it’s critical that we turn the spotlight on its environmental footprint. Large language models such as ChatGPT are some of the most energy-guzzling technologies of all. Research suggests, for instance, that about 700,000 litres of water could have been used to cool the machines that trained ChatGPT-3 at Microsoft’s data facilities. It is hardly news that the tech bubble’s self-glorification has obscured the uglier sides of this industry, from its proclivity for tax avoidance to its invasion of privacy and exploitation of our attention span. The industry’s environmental impact is a key issue, yet the companies that produce such models have stayed remarkably quiet about the amount of energy they consume – probably because they don’t want to spark our concern.

  • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I staunchly disagree with this. If a government actually cared about power consumption, they would subsidize the development of better X86 to arm translation layers so we can move to more power efficient processors.

    There’s actually a lot we could do in order to reduce our energy consumption.

    Another step I would take is completely outlawing the sale of advertisements to data brokers. There are so many resources that go to pumping out advertisements from servers, and it really just is not beneficial to anybody except for the companies.

    I know this would not be popular among a lot of developers, but for certain applications, I would also curb planned obsolescence by creating a minimum viable processor and graphics requirement for certain applications. A lot of the times, the kinds of applications we use just don’t need as much power as they’re guzzling We need to end the feature creep.

    • Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I mean you can disagree with it but it doesn’t make it any less true. Banning data brokers wouldnt do jack shit, governments are so technically illiterate that they dont even understand what you just said, nevermind know what ARM is, and youre also wrong about power usage in applications.