• SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    110
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    Same with water usage. Everybody has to reduce water, not wash cars while industry and agriculture who use like ¾ of the water don’t do anything

      • thunderfist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Juts search for “AI water consumption” or “data center water consumption”. I’ll agree that “we could be using this to wash our cars” is a silly argument, but water shortages affect between 2 and 3 billion people every year (https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/imminent-risk-global-water-crisis-warns-un-world-water-development-report-2023). We could be doing more with this water than cloud computing and AI.

        • stonehopper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Wait a sec, how do they consume water for cooling, i thought it’s in a closed loop as its purpose is only transferring heat

          • thunderfist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            6 months ago

            Some facilities is do this. They’re not 100% efficient, so some is lost to evaporation, some must be dumped because it has too much mineral content (and too much conductivity) to go back through the cooling system. Reusing is only about 50% efficient (according to Google’s numbers).

          • scutiger@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            6 months ago

            On a standard PC, you can easily have a loop because the radiator is big enough to exhause all that heat. But when your computer or cluster puts out multiple thousands of watts of heat, eventually you need to get rid of tge hot water and replace it with cold water. And when it gets even hotter, you need a steady stream of cold water that immediately gets dumped.

          • Krauerking@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Half a liter per kilowatt hour. That’s the average water use

            It’s like the idea of recycling plastics with water.
            Not all of it is reusable to the same degree. A good portion of water has to be evaporated off to cool down the exterior towers plus water isn’t really infinitely usable in these loops. It gets gross or full of materials.

            Another thing that people need to remember is generating electricity uses the water here as we literally don’t use many methods that don’t involve water, we are not on a green grid and neither are these huge data centers for the most part. We boil it for the electricity then have to use additional to clean the system after.

          • psud@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            If you live in a low humidity area you can cool with an evaporative cooler cheaper than with air con. Evaporative coolers consume quite a bit of water

          • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Not really. Look at California agriculture. You’ve got immense and unsustainable amounts of water going to almonds, pistachios, and other cash crops (not to mention animal feed for the Saudis) with voracious demand for more water, despite it causing damage to the water sources.

            • psud@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              The big problem crop for water in California is almonds.

              The big problem crop for water in Australia is cotton.

              The big problem crop for water anywhere is not beef

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        6 months ago

        The US massively overproduces food. We absolutely can afford to not water some of those crops.

        • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          The US massively overuses cars. You can absolutely afford to not wash your car.

            • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              6 months ago

              You can just… not wash your car. It literally doesn’t matter. If water rationing is in effect, washing your car should be the least of your concerns.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                20
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                I don’t care about washing my car. I care that they’re moderating our car washing while allowing foreign businessmen to use as much water as they want on hay that gets exported. And that could be fine if they were doing it in the Mid West. No, they’re doing it in Phoenix, Arizona. A region that knows it’s counting down to a zero day.

                So while I’m not washing my car, they shouldn’t be watering those crops.

              • nBodyProblem@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Not washing cars results in long term damage to the car. If you have a 200k mile shitbox with peeling clear coat, sure, you don’t need to wash it because it probably won’t matter.

                If you have something nice with good paint, washing is an important maintenance item

              • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                If you don’t wash your car and you’ll get corrosion from the salt on the road. If you live where it snows of course.

                • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  This person is talking about being from the desert, so yeah, no sympathy here. The Fremen could figure out that water shouldn’t be wasted when it’s scarce.

          • TheKMAP@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            If the cars are overused that means they require more maintenance, not less. I want walkable places but that’s not the argument to make lol

          • psud@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            If you wash a car it uses less fuel. Dirt makes cars less aerodynamic.

        • Wooki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          lol fresh food is like all public health and wellbeing is non existent unless its been heavily industrialised to make as much money out of it as possible.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Farmers’markets exist but in many cases they’re more expensive than buying at the grocery store. At any rate we already pay Ag corps to leave land fallow so the West and Mid West doesn’t get over farmed again. Telling them to water only 95 percent of their cash crops shouldn’t be a problem.

    • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Free market economics are going to slurp any extra watt as long as it’s capable of making a modicum of profit, unless it is just told “no”. The private sector is going to have to pay far more for their power, or else we’ll never reach NET zero emissions.

      • Lowlee Kun@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        “bUt ThInK aBoUt ThE eCoNoMy!!”

        • Everytime, anyone every mentions any of the many unfair advantages that businesses are getting.
        • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Just replace “economy” with “rich peoples money” to translate.

          Perhaps people would give a shit about the economy if we could afford to own a house?

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        There’s no free market. Free market would mean no copyright, no patents, no brand protection. With real free market (provided you have endless energy from Satan knows where to support that state of things) we’d have noname small to medium businesses coming and going, bigger corporations existing for very complex supply chains and\or some advantageous trade secrets.

        That would potentially cause stagnation in some long perspective, but fix the current situation.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Well, there is a joke about Chernobyl station fulfilling the 5-year plan for energy output in 5 seconds.

            I meant that to protect that free market from various people trying to make it less free in their favor you’d need that energy. Which is why it’ll never reach that state.

            And removing those very important limitations I named is very hard, even unrealistic maybe, but that doesn’t mean that it’s adequate to pretend that a market including them is free. They change everything.

      • ModernEraCaveman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Even if it’s told “no,” it’ll take the person or entity that denied them access straight to the courts, all the while continuing to do so anyway.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      The really juicy bit is the hypocrisy of asking common people to refrain from consuming.

      “Fuck you plebe” would at least have the positive of being honest.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s history. The ones with the means hoard anything of value while blaming the commons for their problems. Doesn’t matter if it’s the Irish Potato Famine or telling us global warming is our fault because we didn’t buy enough greenwashed shit to fix it.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          The Irish famine was more of a result of imperial policy. It’s about genocidal states, not capitalism. I mean, yes, most of Ireland was owned by landlords residing elsewhere, and “protection” of their rights was one of the reasons, but there were also things quite obviously showing the intent, like widespread destruction of church records and local history.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              There really was a motive, if you wish, to use the land freed by expelled (or dead) tenants for something else.

              I just don’t like blaming things on markets and profit motives and capitalism in general, because “tit for tat” in human interactions is not something you can just replace ideologically. It’s in our nature. The sane approach is to make it work in less catastrophic ways, like with sports and video games and martial arts and adult entertainment.

              • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                I think profit and power, or the lack thereof, can be the root of a lot of these awful human traits. It can just be straight up greed driven by a few looking to gain power and/or money that push an agenda of [insert tried and true bogeymen here like xenophobia, religion, racism, etc.] to create motives and instabity to trigger the wars. It could be genuine problems like economic issues or severe agricultural deficiency, via real misfortune or more likely due to greed, corruption, and mismanagement by the country’s leadership. Even religion can be the rationalization, a tit-for-tat, but nonetheless the end result is to take what the enemy has. It doesn’t have to be formalized markets or capitalism.

  • psmgx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    6 months ago

    To paraphrase another Twitter post, “AI uses the same amount of power per day as Guatemala for the sole purpose of making kinda acceptable slide decks for consultants to use when telling other corporate types how many people to fire”

  • bluewing@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Perhaps if there was a lot less asphalt and concrete and more shade trees and grass, it might be a bit cooler and more comfortable?

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yah that would help somewhat.

      But here’s the problem. Carbon Dioxide is like three springly balls stuck together when most other molecules in the air have two springy balls stuck together.

      The more springy balls are in the air, the more they can absorb the wiggles from sunlight, and then even when the sun isn’t shining them springs are still wiggling, releasing that wiggle into other molecules and objects slowly, at a rate much higher than if it were more nitrogen or oxygen. Our biggest problem here is one as simple as slinky-physics. We have too many springy balls wiggling in the sky, wiggling too hard and making everything wiggle more.

      • alcedine@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        6 months ago

        The way you were able to put it so simply makes me really wish that explanation was correct, but unfortunately it is not.

        It’s more along the lines of:

        • All things shine away their hot, as long as they are at least a little bit hot.
          • You know the sun shines, but actually the earth shines too.
          • Actually, you shine too. (That’s why you can be seen on an infrared camera.)
        • The hotter a thing is, the harder it shines.
          • The sun is really hot so it shines really hard.
          • The earth is much less hot, and shines way, way less.
        • The earth gets more hot from catching the shine from the sun, and less hot from shining itself.
          • When the hot coming in from the sunshine is the same as the hot going out from the earthshine, the earth says the same hot.
          • When the hot coming in from the sunshine is more than the hot going out from the earthshine, the earth gets more hot.
            • And as the earth gets more hot, its earthshine becomes harder, until it’s the same as the sunshine again.
        • For the earthshine to take the hot away from the earth, it has to actually get to space.
          • Otherwise it’s like the earth shines on its own air, and the hot remains basically on (or around) the earth.
        • CO2 stops some parts of the earthshine from reaching space.
          • This part of the earthshine, when it starts from the ground, basically never gets to space.
          • It can only get to space from really high up, where there is not so much CO2 in the way.
          • But really high up is also colder, so the earthshine is less (because hotter things shine harder).
          • The more CO2 there is, the higher up we have to go, the colder it is there, the weaker that part of the earthshine is.
          • And when the earthshine gets weaker, the actual earth has to be hotter to shine out as much hot as is coming in from the sunshine. Which is why CO2 makes the earth more hot.
        • ameancow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I try to explain to people in simplified ways, it’s pure pedantry at best or totally confusing at worst to the average person if the heat that CO2 is storing is coming from the sun directly, or the heat being reflected back into space, either way the mechanical idea is the same, that CO2 stores energy.

          • alcedine@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            That’s the point, CO2 doesn’t store energy (well, it does a little, but not so much that it makes any difference). What it does is blocks the energy from leaving (until you reach a high altitude).

            • ameancow@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              CO2 doesn’t store energy (well, it does a little, but not so much that it makes any difference).

              Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’

              https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

              https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-carbon-dioxide-has-such-outsized-influence-on-earths-climate-123064

              I understand there’s many dimensions and factors involved in the entire process, but it’s not a wrong interpretation to say it stores more energy, even if it’s just borrowing it for a moment. It acts like both a heat sink and a thermal blanket. While I’m not a climatologist, I have a pretty good grasp of physics so I’m guessing we’re just talking about pedantic or technical differences in description of the process… something that again, average layperson does NOT need to hear about, people can barely understand scientific concepts as it is.

              The slinky model makes good sense and it’s not wrong, it was described to me BY a scientist in RL, so I will keep using it.

              edit: I genuinely wish the scientific community could embrace being “not perfect” for like, just a week or something.

          • Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            Not really. CO2 is effectively a thermal blanket. It traps your radiant heat. The environmental heat still affects you, additively.
            The only real difference is that people also generate their own heat instead of just storing it. But you could say a thermal blanket on a snake and have the same effect.

      • bluewing@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        So, we cull the herd in large cities and thereby reduce the CO2 and cool the local area?

        The problem is the the concrete and asphalt act as a heat sink. And it holds the heat rather than letting it dissipate in a reasonable manor, thus encouraging those springy balls to play rubby rubby for longer than they should in any one particular localized area. Let alone have some of them soaked up by the pretty green scenery.

        • ameancow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          So you’re partially on the right track, concrete is one of the biggest problems we have with global warming, but it’s not the slabs of hardened concrete that are the problem, yes they get hot and reflect heat upwards so cities feel hotter, but that’s not causing the whole climate to change as much as the carbon dioxide produced in the manufacture and setting of concrete, which produces more of those springy balls than even airplane emissions annually.

          The problem is the carbon (and other greenhouse gasses) far more than anything we do with structures and surfaces on the ground. If you were to take away every road and parking lot, it would make cities feel a little better, but the globe would still be on a runaway temperature increase. Even the idea of planting vast amounts of trees is likely not nearly enough. We had our window to act, it slipped by.

      • SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Does this mean that the global warming potential of gaseous polyethylene (plastic) is something stupidly high? Even Methane (4 springy balls radiating from 1 bigger ball) has a way higher (28:1) global warming potential than Carbon Dioxide.

        • ameancow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I haven’t read about gaseous forms of plastics in the air specifically, so it’s probably not as much of a major problem as the larger greenhouse gasses, like yes, chemicals that have many more “springy balls” like Methane that are being released as the climate warms, increasing the rate at which the globe heats. The permafrost and arctic ice has massive amounts of trapped methane that is currently being released in large explosions turning areas of the arctic circle into moonscapes of craters.

  • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’ve got solar panels and AC. I’m keeping the house at meat locker freezing while staying within the solar panel production. Might as well use the power when it’s there.

    Some people will complain about using AC in general. They can sweat all they want - I’m keeping cool.

    • sulunia@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      6 months ago

      ngl, this is my lifelong goal. Have a house and being able to install and own green technology. Too bad that’s mostly out of reach for anyone born in the 90’s.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        6 months ago

        They’re making that increasingly difficult. Basically, as more and more people get solar it becomes economically impossible to maintain the grid with millions of people being paid to connect to it.

        The result is a higher and higher percentage of your power bill not be for “use” but for some other bullshit.

        Because of the crazy power rate spikes during one of the Texas freezes, my power bill gets like a bunch added to it as a recovery fee for like the next 15 years. Then there’s the connection fee, maintenance fee, etc. My bill is like $300-400 a month before the first milliwatt is calculated, which makes solar less-viable. I’m paying a huge power bill no matter what (illegal to disconnect from the grid entirely), so payments towards a $50,000 solar setup would just make it more expensive.

        I might save 20-40 bucks on my electric bill, but the extra $250 in payments for solar would kill that.

        • Liz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yeah that’s been an anticipated problem, since home solar is essentially a lost customer for the utility, but infrastructure maintenance costs don’t change. Honestly the power grid shouldn’t be a commercial enterprise, even if it’s under shit tons of regulation. It’s so absurdly critical to society we should have nationalized the power companies a long time ago.

          • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yeah… Right now California residents are paying massively inflated rates because the utility board decided that PG&E, a company that is literally a convicted killer, can pass the cost of the fines on to customers.

          • Zink@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yeah, if it’s a problem that our power grid is having distributed green energy connected all over the place, we need to make the damn utilities change.

      • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Here in the Netherlands, the panels are wired into the grid so you’re always delivering back and not using that power directly. What happens is, they basically deduct the power generated from the power you’ve used. This crediting system will eventually disappear, as too many people are feeding back solar power.

        For all intents and purposes, as long as we generate more than we use, we’re paying nothing except grid charges and taxes. So if you’ve got a low energy use day and plenty of solar, there’s really no reason not to run an AC (or a washer/dryer, etc)

    • TheFriar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      How big is your solar panel set up? I’ve been thinking of getting one of those solar generators, the smaller ones, and just using as much a/c as I can power with that. It probably wouldn’t last too long, right? I’d need a bigger set up?

      • discozombie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        You’d be surprised. A little window rattler AC could be powered by such a setup - ie I have a 1.6kw cooling A/C with an input rating of 490W, I’ve measured it to be around that. That will cool a bedroom somewhat. The issue will be the surge power when the compressor kicks in, so maybe add 50%.

      • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        We’ve got nine panels on the south facing roof. Right now, reasonably sunny day, they produce about 3.6 -3.7 Kw. That amply covers the power consumption of one of the two LG aircons we have. Those take about 2.5 kW. We usually just run one, depending on outside temp.

        I’m not really familiar with solar generators in general, but that feels like you’d need a pretty beefy one to keep an AC powered.

    • refalo@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      a solar/battery setup large enough to run a whole house A/C for a reasonable amount of time (days in the case of a major power outage) would cost tens of thousands of dollars.

      a generator powered by some type of gas (LPG/CNG) or diesel would probably be a lot more practical.

    • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      If everyone had solar panels and thought like you, we’d still have globe warming

      Energy is heat. There’s no such thing as cold, just lack of heat.

      Trapping sun rays then releasing hot air warms the planet. That’s what your system is doing. Removing heat from your house and putting it outside while your electric motor throws out extra heat.

      It just doesn’t have the air pollution that burning coal or gas does.

      • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I am, in fact, quite aware of how air conditioners work :D A lot of devices work like this; it’s why a refrigerator and freezer generate heat. And why things like a slushy machine are real power hogs. Basically, anything that gets things cool will generate heat elsewhere.

        Thing is, a refrigerator and freezer are very much needed in daily life. An air conditioner thankfully isn’t - yet. But on days where we have 25+ celsius, the aircon is the difference between being sweaty, irritable, unproductive and with poor sleep or… perfectly comfortable. So, we choose to not be miserable. It keeps me sane during heatwaves.

        But yes, absolutely nobody should own one. And I highly encourage everybody else not to get one. I’m keeping mine though.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        That light was already going to turn into heat. That’s where basically everything but nuclear power came from.

        Unless you have actual, credible researched math on the climate impact we’re all going to ignore you.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      That’s ok as long as your solar panels also provide all your needs so you don’t have to put load on the grid that could be put on your solar setup otherwise (if you’re in a sector that’s currently under alert).

  • spicystraw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    We’re so into pushing the limits of AI, but we’re forgetting about the important stuff, like making sure everyone has power when the weather goes crazy. It’s like we’re so focused on the shiny new toy that we’re ignoring the basics. It’s like we’re trading our populations health for a few cool pictures. We need to think about the bigger picture and make sure we’re not sacrificing what really matters for the sake of technology.

    • Krauerking@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      6 months ago

      Oh everyone is into toys and roleplaying right now. That’s the theme of the era.

      Pretend.

      Pretend to do business like your daddy and then sit back and watch number go up. Pretend the new algorithm system is some super future app. Pretend we can just undo it and that we really have control over everything we do.

      Heck, even most politicians aren’t actually bringing plans but simply roleplaying what they think is the party or level of conservativeness needed to just make it work a little longer.

      No plans. No thoughts towards the future. Just now and how to make it feel more right than be.

      • ameancow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        We are an emotional species, it’s always been entirely about feelings and games of pretend. We briefly dabbled with the idea that we were a species of reason and logic, but the advent of being able to share our thoughts and ideas with anyone, anywhere, instantly, has dashed all our hopes that we can rise above our biological nature. We simply cannot handle things we weren’t designed by evolution to handle, and as soon as we get distressed, our brains work overtime to invent a story to explain how we feel.

        You do this a thousand times a day about small things. The brain doesn’t care if the story it presents you makes sense, it just has to tie every feeling to something it thinks it knows. Which is why you have doctors and nurses becoming anti-vax science deniers and why so many people are so ready to accept an alternative view of the universe even if makes no sense and there’s no evidence for it.

        We are now currently making machines that can connect with those emotional responses and create new stories for us and make us feel things. This should be incredibly worrying, even as we’re suffering under climate change.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        It’s funny that the way western Roman empire declined in public image is not the way that really happened, but we are still trying to imitate it.

        Cause in reality it was very agile. Late Romans really wanted to keep relevance and they managed to do that, but they also made the possible adversaries just as relevant and had too much infighting.

        While our time imitates that empty helpless shell with nice looks from stupid movies which suddenly gets destroyed.

        A weird thought.

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          People don’t know these things or they assume and project the idea all they did was have power and that’s all that needs to be done to maintain it.

          Maybe it’s our attention spans are shorter to even deal with it, maybe it’s just that we are so comfortable in our existence plus so overwhelmed by knowledge that it’s easy to just pick parts you like and assume it will all be fine without the struggle. But we are to busy lying to ourselves, and just carrying on as expected I think, to pivot until forced.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            or they assume and project the idea all they did was have power and that’s all that needs to be done to maintain it.

            Yes. And those people who for some reason are near power are very arrogant and think that abusing it is how you achieve things.

            There’s been a time in my childhood where I thought that the humanity will become better and kinder, if we make everyone play non-rigged multiplayer games again and again, so that everyone sees how these things really work.

            My childhood with Travian and MMOs and WarCraft III and browser RPGs has definitely taught me some things in that area.

            Not sure if today’s multiplayer games generally lacking this effect (except for Eve, maybe, but it’s unplayable with ADHD, thus for me) is a result of some targeted policy (as in conspiracy) or just evolution.

    • Kiosade@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      6 months ago

      Who’s “we”? Big corporations? Because the average Joe doesn’t give a shit about pushing the limits of AI.

      • dch82@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        6 months ago

        Judging by half of Lemmy and R*ddit, I don’t think many of us tech folk care about GenAI

        • Zink@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 months ago

          We have the combination of knowing a little bit about how it works while also not trying to fire a bunch of humans or sell some shiny new product while the getting is good.

      • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        Startups can easily raise 7-figures by adding AI to their proposals and get seed money.

        We struggle to fulfill GoFundMes for small town projects.

        Humanity is doomed. (And I didn’t even talk about the disgustingly gross allocation of funding for weapons of war vs helping the poor)

      • spicystraw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Royal “we”, as in humanity. Your statement may be valid that the average Joe does not care, but it is important. Just as it was important to develop electricity to what is the modern grid today.

    • sparkle@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      if they’re american: until they’re 70, if they’re not american: no

    • kn33@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      Assuming °F, you can survive that indefinitely as long as you wear light clothing, you’re not in direct sunlight, you don’t have a medical condition that affects things, and it’s not too humid.

        • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          While doing anything… 70F is pretty much perfect temp for most people. You’ll cool down fairly quickly after any heavy activity and will be safe during said activity unless you’re in direct sun, not drinking, and not taking breaks, but all that is true in nearly any temp.

          70F is roughly 20C

          • Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Cool, but that’s 70 and not 79. Sure it’s only a few degrees swing but that still matters. We’re also looking at water shortages in a good number of places so counting on that being a ready supply is not necessarily true.

            65 is a real nice temperature to survive at too though a little on the cooler side but it’s not what we were talking about.

              • Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                Cool, that’s still not answering the question. What level of work can a body do under standard conditions at 79 F, without overheating? That changes with humidity so at break points of 40, 60, and 80% how does that affect the body? What you think feels nice is not what I was asking.

                • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Just go outside and look at people working outdoors or exercising. 79 isn’t very hot. Shocking fact: A/C was invented in the 20th century. Humans and summers were invented way, way before that. Do you think farmers just spontaneously combusted every summer before the advent of A/C? I know many farmers that don’t have A/C to this day, and they work sun up to sun down all summer long with no problems.

                  79 degrees would barely be considered hot in large swaths of the world. You can live and work in relative comfort at 79 degrees. Think of it this way: people run 135 mile ultramarathons in Death Valley where temperatures get up to 130 degrees.

                  Not everyone sits inside an air conditioned cube all day.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    The irony here is most AI is “mundane” and not diffusion or LLM AI.

    For instance… the “AI” X is using to produce feeds ingest posts, serve ads and such.

    X, Facebook and so on are the real villains here, and Mastadon, Lemmy, and (I guess?) Bluesky are the heroes, skipping all that attention optimization nonsense.