Remix clone Hacker News

Huh? It's additional power draw in the midst of an energy transition. It's not currently being used differently. What do you mean what's the problem with that?

Also don't forget it's just one of three aspects I can think of off the top of my head. This isn't the only issue with LLMs...

Edit: while typing this reply, I remembered a fourth: I've seen many people object morally/ethically to the training method in terms of taking other people's work for free and replicating it. I don't know how I stand on that one myself yet (it is awfully similar to a human learning and replicating creatively, but clearly on an inhuman scale, so idk) but that's yet another possible reason not to want this

▲

11 days ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

stavros 11 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If people need additional power, they pay for it. If they want to pay for extra power, why would we gatekeep whether their need is legitimate or not?

▲

Aachen 11 days ago | parent [-]

Because of the aforementioned shortage. Paying for more power means coal and gas gets spun up since there aren't enough renewables, and the externalities aren't being paid for by those people

I'm also happy to have them pay for the full cleanup cost rather than discourage useless consumption, but somehow people don't seem to think crazy energy prices are a great idea either

Also you're still very focused on this one specific issue rather than looking at the bigger picture. Not sure if the conversation is going anywhere like this

	▲	stavros 11 days ago \| parent [-]
		What's the bigger picture? You said "power usage", "to what purpose?" (you kind of don't get a say in whether I use an LLM to reply to you, though you're free to stop talking to me), and "objections to the training method", which doesn't really seem relevant to the use case, but more of a general objection to LLMs.