Remix.run Logo
barbazoo 3 days ago

> “Running the global infrastructure behind our products and services, including AI, takes considerable energy,” said Google in its Environment 2025 report, which explained that it will be almost impossible to meet its erstwhile net-zero ambitions, partly due to its expansion in AI.

Greed, greed, greed. They'd rather see the world burn than not be first in AI whatever that means. They could still achieve net zero, they have just chosen not to. Unimaginable amounts of money but it's never enough.

boringg 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

So they don't make net zero but they still continue to improve their operations and have a lighter green footprint while maintaining themselves in the great AI race.

Can anyone shed any light on the difference between net-zero and what they will actually be able to achieve? Will be hard given that the workloads for AI have sucked up all available energy resources. I have to think at the margin it is getting very expensive to acquire those resources.

wnevets 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Capitalism is the most efficient system for resource allocation or something.

_mlbt 3 days ago | parent [-]

Do you have an example of an alternative economic system that is more efficient at resource allocation in practice, not just theory?

throw-qqqqq 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

No alternatives have been tried on a global scale, so I don’t think anyone has the practical evidence you request.

_mlbt 3 days ago | parent [-]

I think a large nation the size of the former Soviet Union or China should be enough to invalidate communism and centrally planned economies if that’s what you’re suggesting.

kjkjadksj 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Those just invalidate totalitarianism. On the other hand, the US government uplifted itself from the great depression and won WWII thanks to a centrally planned economy. People like to forget about that fact though.

_mlbt 3 days ago | parent [-]

How do you achieve nation or world scale communism without totalitarianism? I am one of many people who know the history of communism’s failures and will never accept it willingly.

frank_nitti 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I would be more interested to see your response to the key point of their comment - that the US exemplified this on a large scale in recent history.

That would be more compelling than to simply claim to have a lot of knowledge of history

_mlbt 3 days ago | parent [-]

I don’t think the World War II economy is repeatable today. It was a time of great patriotism with the majority of the nation supporting the war. People were willing to sacrifice for the cause and accept rationing of goods and making substitutions. They also knew that these sacrifices were temporary and helped their loved ones win the war and hopefully return to them sooner.

Today in America it is hard to get more than half the population to agree on anything. There is no unifying catalyst to bring about the consensus, cooperation, and personal sacrifice that would be necessary to implement a centrally planned economy in the United States today.

kjkjadksj 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

We already have communism to a certain degree in every democratic government. You already accept it willingly. It is just a matter of expanding more government programs on top of sectors being squatted by rent seekers looking to make money without actual contribution to the economy beyond rent seeking from those that do contribute to the economy. The only hard part is that rent seekers tend to have an outsized influence on politics than workers.

Really, what is the utility of a rent seeker? By definition they are a leach on the actual productive elements of an economy. A waste. An inefficiency. I mean, you pay someone to do something, but you have to pay them even more than what might be required because they have this nonworking person sustaining themselves on rent seeking you also need to pay stuck on that back of that worker. That is the situation in so many economic sectors. It leads to a huge loss of money and productivity objectively. It leads to businesses outsourcing labor due to the artificial costs brought on by speculative rent seekers in a given local economy.

My landlord has no job. They collect probably 16k in rent a month from all the units in the small complex in which they raise rents yearly. In terms of investment in the property they once hired a handyman to cauk my sink so probably not even $200 a unit a year in overhead on average. They don’t do renovations or any work between tenants beyond sweeping up the floors and they try and keep as much security deposit for themselves as possible for stupid things. I pay a substantial portion of my income not to upkeep the roof over my head, but to ensure my landlord can have an upper class existence in a high cost of living area while not having to work a job and contribute any labor or ideas.

Does that seem like a good system to you? Enabling freeloaders to leech off the people doing the actual work that makes the world spin, to a point where they are paid far more than most workers? Passing that lifestyle to their nonworking children through inheritance? Essentially creating a hidden nonworking feudal kingdom sustained by the functional economy? One that has outsized political and media influence to ensure the boat is not rocked? Really think about what is actually happening in our economy.

_mlbt 3 days ago | parent [-]

So you would like to have the government take over all the houses and become your landlord instead?

When they seize these properties, how should the government determine who gets to live where? Should it be based on your profession? Your family size? Your standing within the Party, Comrade? Perhaps your ability to bribe the government agent who is responsible for assigning housing? What if there’s not enough housing for everyone and the government is behind on building more? How many random strangers are you okay with sharing your apartment with?

Resources are fundamentally finite and unequally distributed, even under communism.

kjkjadksj 3 days ago | parent [-]

Same way it works today. Only rather than a portion of my salary going toward rent and supporting the lifestyle of my landlord, it goes to maintenance and development, and my landlord has to find something socially productive to do to get a meal and their bmw. Let me rent an apartment from my city for a fair market rate that does not factor in the landlord living off my back. Lets go a step further. Let me buy a home without paying a banker interest. I’m a worker in the system, I am a fungible unit of labor. My home should basically be accounted for already, I should be able to move in the day I sign my job offer with no money down.

Another example of communism that isn’t some impoverished corrupt nation economically isolated from global trade through US led embargo: on base housing at your local military base.

_mlbt 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Another example of communism that isn’t some impoverished corrupt nation economically isolated from global trade through US led embargo: on base housing at your local military base.

Military on base housing has been privatized since the 90s. You are provided a housing allowance as part of your pay that is then paid to corporate landlords.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_housing_privatizati...

kjkjadksj 3 days ago | parent [-]

What a terrible disservice to our military personnel throwing leeches on their back.

nathan_compton 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I guess ask a Chinese person? Like I'm sure many Chinese people aren't happy about the way their state functions, but the vast majority of them live their lives pretty much like we do. I don't know if I would take that as a total invalidation of whatever it is they have over there. Would I prefer a western style system? Definitely, but I'm not sure its so easy to point at China and say "this is an abject failure."

In fact, quite the opposite: most of the poverty reduction in the last 50 years has been in China, for example. Most of the cheap stuff we buy is manufactured there. Being the "factory of the world" doesn't seem like a definitive invalidation of that system.

ackfoobar 3 days ago | parent [-]

The poverty reduction comes from the Chinese "Communist" Party adopting capitalism.

nathan_compton 3 days ago | parent [-]

This is a pretty glib way of putting it. The chinese system isn't really capitalism, at least not of the "free market" type. Like I'm not saying that communism is responsible for the improvements in poverty, but I am saying that a significantly non-capitalist system has resulted in big changes. My point is that we often talk like anything that is not a pure capitalism is bound to grind to a halt and be catastrophically bad, but that isn't true.

ackfoobar 3 days ago | parent [-]

On the spectrum between pure communism and pure capitalism, modern China is closer to the US than the US is close to pure capitalism.

> has resulted in big changes

The change was allowing market forces to align incentives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_and_opening_up

nashashmi 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Resource allocation? Yes, normal socioeconomics. But did it have rapid growth trajectory? No. It lacked the ambition needed to drive humanity to maximum consumerism.

Before capitalism and communism was a thing, we had normal economics. And the worst part of this in some places was the bourgeoisie. They kept the resources in their control. And communism was supposed to be a banging of the piñata that shook the tree. Capitalism was a response to communism, yet installed a basic transition to a socialist education system and for educational wealth to be added.

I guess a good antidote to bad actors is for a wealth tax. Unused or underutilized wealth gets taxed until the net tax is reduced to whatever financial return it has.

benlivengood 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'd wager the biological cellular economy is more efficient and more robust than capitalist economies.

Not that I advocate nature red in tooth and claw as the epitome of governance.

abdullahkhalids 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

There are none. But I don't want the economic system to be judged by its ability to do resource allocation. I want my economic system to be judged by its ability to improve metrics of human well being - and not even the median well-being, but the well-being of say the 10% percentile person in society.

Sure, resource allocation can be a instrumental to those goals of human well being, but not the directly optimized metric. So, for example, I care very little gdp/capita when you can just as easily measure life expectancy or food stress levels.

On such counts, capitalism has a mixed record. Today, for example, a lot of countries that are "more capitalistic" than others have poorer metrics of human development than those that are "less capitalistic".

Muromec 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

>There are none. But I don't want the economic system to be judged by its ability to do resource allocation. I want my economic system to be judged by its ability to improve metrics of human well being - and not even the median well-being, but the well-being of say the 10% percentile person in society.

That requires resource allocation as a prerequisite and a functioning democracy that values this metric. Blaming the first one for not having the latter is a choice, but a strange one.

astrobe_ 3 days ago | parent [-]

Not so strange. Just like communism slips to oligarchy, capitalism slips to plutocracy, and as such actively undermines democracy. It doesn't that campaign budgets are capped when you have the right media owners on your side.

People decide on resource allocation, period. It is as "efficient" as choosing human laws versus natural selection, the latter being exactly the model capitalism is copied from.

3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
_Algernon_ 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

One issue with capitalism — and every alternative system would have its own variant of this problem — is rent seeking. Players become so powerful within the economic system that they no longer play by the rules, but rather write the rules to their benefit. This allows them to extract value instead of creating value.

This is a run-away positive feedback loop which is kept in check by regular revolt and redistribution of wealth (see eg. the labor movement).

abdullahkhalids 3 days ago | parent [-]

Yes. The obvious solution is to either design your politico-economic system that big players never emerge, or are such that they don't have incentives to corrupt (eg. SOE).

Another example of the latter, is that large companies should always be majority owned by their employees in a 1/N fashion. The idea being that even if such players try to rent-seek, at least the rent is being extracted in favor of normal people rather than a small class of rich people.

parthdesai 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

AI is literally an existential threat to their business, what are you talking about?

yifanl 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

If the only way to appease shareholders next quarter was to detonate an ICBM in Times Square, do you do it?

gosub100 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That's a strange way to spell "competition". Where is it written that environmental considerations go out the window when having to compete in business?

_mlbt 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

More than any other company, Google needs to succeed in AI. AI chat has already replaced search engines for many people. Nearly all of Google’s revenue comes from advertising.

watwut 3 days ago | parent [-]

Funny enough, that was googles choice. And They made the search worst was consciously as a business strategy, because worst search meant more queries.

And they forced ai on top of search because they wanted to.

munk-a 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

They're a dinosaur and have forgotten how to innovate and provide new value. This is what complacency and shifting your business to focus on regulatory capture ultimately leads to.

ncruces 3 days ago | parent [-]

Are their competitors more energy efficient somehow?

This is a thread about them not being able to meet carbon neutrality commitments because of AI, which they feel they need to because competitors are eating their lunch.

Are the competitors not eating their lunch? Are they doing so because they're more green? Otherwise what are they expected to do? Not compete? “Innovate” themselves out of not needing energy consuming AI?

dmbche 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Shit, I hadn't had that thought but it's self evident, the "worse search = more queries". Thanks for the insight.

jm4 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They have a fiduciary duty to shareholders. Bailing on AI because they can't do that and also be net-zero is a good way to get sued.

kjkjadksj 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Don’t the shareholders benefit from having an earth worth investing in that isn’t falling apart from climate catastrophe in a few decades?

munk-a 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Never before have I heard of lighting a pile of cash on fire being a fiduciary duty. Post-GPT AI may eventually prove a highly profitable venture - right now the only people making money are the shovel sellers and most of the launched applications can't seem to attract users at a price point that's sustainable.

fmbb 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sued for what?

AI is not making anyone money except Nvidia.

watwut 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Actually, fiduciary duty is not actually a mandate to be a maximal psychopath nor a mandate to spend billions on high risk investments.

As in, fiduciary duty does not prevent companies from being net-zero nor does it mandate AI.