Comment on Integer addition algorithm could reduce energy needs of AI by 95%

django@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• halm@leminal.space ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Came here to say that a 95% reduction in energy consumption will only greenwash a corresponding or larger increase in usage — but yours is of course the correct response! 👏👏👏

  source
• skarn@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  But… Isn’t that kind of the point? Slashing computational cost so that we can deploy that stuff wherever it’s needed without a tenfold increase in the world’s energy bill?

  Whether we should do that at all is a very different question.

  source

  • halm@leminal.space ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    “Wherever it’s needed” is the operative term here, isn’t it? Looking at how it’s already being implemented, nobody seems to bother asking whether “AI” is really needed.

    source

    • skarn@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Personally, I find myself in a bizarre situation.

      I have some open source ““Ai”” solutions that I find really really nice and helpful e.g. the image search in Immich, or LanguageTool which bills itself as an AI spellchecker.

      At the same time I am horrified at the stupidity underlying 99% of big tech AI stuff that gets wall street hot.

      source

      • halm@leminal.space ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        That’s the difference, isn’t it? People can use “AI” to make simple little things easier. Corporations want it to replace and automate the jobs of swathes of the workforce. It’s the latter that is the “growth market”, and the one that eats the most power.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Artyom@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Improving the technology behind AI will only increase the return on investment per watt, so you’ll want to spend even more on it than before. This would more than likely increase the energy demands (assuming it doesn’t turn into vaporware).

    source