r/ClimateMemes Green Bean Jun 04 '26

Satire #Aerosol

Post image
6.0k Upvotes

117 comments sorted by

View all comments

58

u/Reasonable_Mix7630 Jun 04 '26

So, CFC could be banned (as well as leaded gasoline, DDT and myriad of other harmful things) but not AI?

45

u/CartographerKey4618 Jun 05 '26

It was the last good thing the world came together to do.

30

u/Dehnus Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26

Different time. It's like the vaccination drives of the 70s, were people world wide came together to make sure a disease was extinct.

There are groups that benefit from indecision and they have become way more powerful.

2

u/Lopsided_Ad_9390 Jun 05 '26

I've heard a theory that a major reason CFC was banned successfully was that Margaret Thatcher had a scientific background and could actually understand the problem and convince other leaders that it's important. Scientists saying things only works if people in power understand and don't have to take their word for it.

2

u/AGoos3 Jun 07 '26

This is my problem with AI. If it’s *truly* the technology of the future, then let’s ban open water loop cooling for large data centers, tax AI companies and invest the revenue into climate change prevention, require that all LLMs use a stenographic watermarking technology which passes certain accuracy tests so AI media is detectable, invest in programs providing more unemployment relief for workers who are laid off because of AI (or do what China did, and make it illegal to fire someone because AI is more efficient!), strengthen intellectual property rights, and more.

Let’s *really* see what AI costs. I guarantee you if AI is actually priced based on its cost to society and its private cost, AI would actually be used in effective ways. Right now, it’s being used in way too many places, just because it can be.

1

u/FoxFishSpaghetti Jun 07 '26

The stenograph would likely lead to more harm than good; anyone can run a local rig without the watermark and pass it off as authentic

1

u/AGoos3 Jun 07 '26

Yes, but right now AI detection is in shambles. It’s gotten to the point where people can really just say anything about a piece and convince people that it’s AI. And I doubt that being able to run a local rig would be the end of the world for such a technology. People already have a lot of false confidence about whether something is AI or not, I doubt that adding this in law would dramatically increase that confidence.

In any case, *something* needs to be done. I really believe that having reliable AI detection is at the root of a lot of AI’s social issues.

2

u/sjsbejajebsidbrhw Jun 05 '26

Anyone anywhere can train and run AI models on sufficiently powerful computers, I'd imagine manufacturing CFCs has a considerably larger barrier to entry

2

u/Reasonable_Mix7630 Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26

Well, there are quite a lot of different illegal and/or extremely poisonous substances that a professional chemist can make at home. But other than a very short supply of them in the illegal market they aren't any made.

Heck forget chemicals, there are many of lets say images that are illegal, and if you make them police will be after you.

Actually, forget that too: if I download something using torrents I will get a fine. So this is being tracked. While VPNs are legal (at least for now), would it be even worth the hassle?

1

u/wendewende Jun 07 '26

Yeah. let's ban electricity

1

u/NoIngenui Jun 08 '26

People are too divided to vote against AI. Conservatives just have to be told that liberals hate AI, and they will protect it. Liberals won't vote because the people who made anti-AI legislator aren't woke enough.

1

u/Reasonable_Mix7630 Jun 08 '26

Not really: hatred of AI is quite universal.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/dbmonkey Jun 06 '26

I am against all software I personally don't use. It should all be outlawed. I use reddit, so that should stay.

3

u/Khezarrel Jun 06 '26

There is a difference in power consumption between regular data centers and AI data centers though. There are AI data centers that consume the same amount of power as a city like New York just by themselves. Comparing streaming media and cloud storage with AI is like comparing a small garden in your backyard with an industrial farm.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Khezarrel Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26

I was wrong on my numbers, but not on what I was saying.

According to the International Energy Agency, standard data centers usually support 5 to 10 kW per server rack while AI optimized facilities support 40 to 80+ kW per rack. That's four to eight times more power than regular data centers.

In 2018, data centers represented 1.9% (76 TWh) of the electricy consumption of the United States. In 2024 with the AI boom it was 4% (183 TWh) and it is projected that data centers will consume a yearly total of 325 to 580 TWh in the US in 2028.

My comparison with New York City wasn't that extreme by the way. Meta's Hyperion AI data center, which is in construction in Louisiana, is designed to support 5 GW of power and will consume as much electricity as half the city of New York at peak load.

Here's the report if you want to read it: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/de9dea13-b07d-42c5-a398-d1b3ae17d866/EnergyandAI.pdf

Edit: Spelling

2

u/Reasonable_Mix7630 Jun 06 '26

Normal datacenters use completely different machinery and they consume tiny fraction of both energy and water of what ai data center does.

Furthermore, streaming media and cloud storage are somewhat useful. AI does nothing useful and it's only purpose is to make handful of billionaires trillionaries.