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.

  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    7 months ago

    I sort of agree with you, but also think we need to incentivize efficiency (or disincentivize inefficiency). As mentioned in the article, there is also the issue of the immense quantities of water used by data centers, a byproduct of power use and inefficiency. If we could at least capture and store that heat energy to do something useful, it would be a huge improvement.

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      This makes sense to me, we could continue to develop and use important technologies while at the same time setting things up so their externalities are part of their cost and companies have financial reasons to work to reduce the impact.

      • cygnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        setting things up so their externalities are part of their cost

        Yeah, this is the real problem, and it goes far beyond LLMs (pretty much any resource extraction or heavy industry, for example).