this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
119 points (97.6% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5289 readers
675 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
119
‘Thirsty’ ChatGPT uses four times more water than previously thought (www.thetimes.com)
submitted 1 day ago by cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/climate@slrpnk.net
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/32023985

Writing a 100-word email using ChatGPT (GPT-4, latest model) consumes 1 x 500ml bottle of water It uses 140Wh of energy, enough for 7 full charges of an iPhone Pro Max

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 6 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Seeing db0’s stance on AI has been depressing.

“Back in my day”, the sense among piracy advocates seemed to be that cultural artifacts are so important to society and human dignity that they shouldn’t be held hostage by gatekeepers who are only interested in profit and see exposure to a wide audience as a monetization failure. It was a respect tor the value of a creative work, a duty to preserve that signal and not let it be consumed by the noise of commerce.

Today, it seems that the pirate scene views cultural artifacts as disposable and fungible, raw materials with no essence or signal in their own right. It’s more about speedrunning towards some inevitable nihilistic chaos, tearing everything down to spite the old gatekeepers and joining forces with the new gatekeepers so long as they seem to be on the side of destruction and “free shit”. There’s no allegiance to society, just a brutal individualistic free-for-all.

It’s the antithesis of what I believed the internet was going to do to the old copyright regime. And I’m not sure there’s a home for people who still think like me.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

We're just not doing the same knee-jerk reactions to GenerativeAI as technology. I would argue most of us are against corporate control of such technology though. In a sense it's like not being against social media even through we're against facebook and reddit.

Personally, I reject copyrights as a valid framework, and thus all arguments that hinge on respect for copyrights to go against GenerativeAI fall flat. I likewise find that the problems caused by generative AI are capitalist problems, and not technological problems.

More to the point, I regularly upvote and posts posts such as the OP myself on !techtakes@awful.systems