by imnotlost on 6/23/25, 8:38 PM
Just build a bunch of nuclear power plants around the world. If we can spend a trillion or two bombing the taliban back into power we can afford some energy projects.
by elpocko on 6/23/25, 8:39 PM
There are many more millions of GPUs in computers and game consoles around the world burning electricity for your entertainment, for decades. The same class of devices. The environmental impact of having pretty pixels on your screens is at least an order of magnitude higher than what it is for AI, for inference and training. I don't see anyone being up in arms about that.
by whiplash451 on 6/25/25, 4:05 PM
Let's try to ground the discussion into data.
Headcounts:
- Gaming GPUs: Installed base 700-900M GPUs + active gaming rigs (100-200M). Assumption of 250M active gamers worldwide.
- AI GPUs: ~3 million high-performance AI GPUs currently in active use globally
Average power usage:
Gaming: 3 hours gaming at 300W → 37.5W average over 24h
AI: 16h×600W+8h×100Widle=10400Wh→ 433W average over 24h
Total Global GPU Power Consumption:
Gaming: 250M GPUs × 37.5W avg = ~9.4 GW -> 9.4GW×24h×365=82.4 TWh/year
AI: 3M GPUs × 433W avg = ~1.3 GW -> 1.3GW×24h×365=11.4 TWh/year
Even taking into account that data centers also require power for cooling, which doubles AI GPU energy impact, gaming >> AI by a wide margin.
by platevoltage on 6/23/25, 10:22 PM
It is kind of weird to see the same people who have been saying "Our grid can't support electric cars" also not seeing any issue with the injection of AI into everything we see and do.
by narrator on 6/23/25, 9:20 PM
Wait till the mining gets automated, the transportation gets automated, the manufacturing and construction gets automated. There won't be that much labor and we will run into our ecological limits to growth at meteoric speed since that will be the limiting factor on the AI/robot genie. The only job at the government will be who gets to use the AI/robot genie and frantically running about trying to play whack-a-mole with paperclip maximizers that will appear everywhere. The whole economy will collapse to that. Basically, central planning all over again. This is why we need Free Market Ecology. I'll post a link if anyone's interested.
by yomismoaqui on 6/23/25, 9:31 PM
Is Greenpeace still a thing? I thought that Greta Thunberg and Just Stop Oil stole their thunder.
by dydghks2033 on 6/23/25, 10:57 PM
Interesting point about energy cost. If GPT inference keeps scaling, latency + watt efficiency might become central to AGI deployment.
by option on 6/23/25, 11:01 PM
What is the environmental impacts of Greenpeace lobbying against nuclear power?
by djoldman on 6/23/25, 8:08 PM
> Greenpeace calls for the following measures to minimize the environmental impacts of Artificial Intelligence:
> 1. An energy-efficient AI infrastructure powered 100% by renewable energy. This green power must be additionally generated.
> 2. AI companies must disclose:
a. How much electricity is used in operating their AI.
b. How much power is consumed by users during their use of AI.
c. The goals under which their models were trained, and which environmental parameters were considered.
> 3. AI developers must take responsibility for their supply chains. They must contribute to the expansion of renewable energy in line with their growth and ensure that local communities do not suffer negative consequences (e.g., lack of drinking water, higher electricity prices).
Is there a term for "energy neutrality," the cousin of "net neutrality"?
Do we as a society want to wade into the morass of telling people what kinds of activities they can use energy for?
If we care about saving a watt-hour, there are lots of places to look. Pointing fingers at the incredible energy consumption of internet-delivered HD video might not feel very comfortable to lots of folks.
by lenerdenator on 6/23/25, 8:21 PM
We didn't care about the environmental impacts of all of the other stuff that made a few people obscenely rich; we're not gonna start now.
I mean, should we? Yeah. But we're not gonna.
by MoonGhost on 6/23/25, 9:31 PM
Realistic calculations should include both sides. New way vs old. In this case AI assisted vs manual. Here intentionally only one side considered. Because comparison does not produce desirable result. Which makes in attention attracting BS.
by grej on 6/23/25, 10:42 PM
Linking energy use to the environment is a political choice, and Greenpeace are some of the worst offenders for making the situation worse by opposing nuclear power at every turn.
by Zaylan on 6/24/25, 3:12 AM
We talk a lot about AI’s potential, but its energy footprint is often underestimated. As model sizes grow, the environmental impact of both training and inference may show up faster than expected. It's an issue worth more attention.
by sergiotapia on 6/23/25, 8:24 PM
As long as India and China are dumping obscene amounts of plastics into the ocean, I don't really wanna hear it. AI drop in the bucket. The measures imposed on Americans and worse Europeans is an insult.