This seems like a waste of time to me when you could instead focus on Coal or things that matter
My thoughts are that this makes no sense at all.
I think they want to subtly train the masses to use less electricity because the new AI schemes need all of that extra power just to exist.
What are your thoughts on this?
Or
What’s your thought on this?
Not what the title is now. “What is your thoughts” obviously isn’t correct.
Ah the UEL, where you can do useful studies that don’t require screen time:
MSc Artificial Intelligence
MSc Artificial Intelligence (with placement year)
MSc Big Data Technologies
MSc Big Data Technologies (with industrial placement)
MSc Blockchain and Financial Technologies
MSc Blockchain and Financial Technologies (with industrial placement)
MSc Cloud Computing
MSc Cloud Computing (with industrial placement)
MSc Computer Science
MSc Computer Science (with industrial placement)
MSc Computing
MSc Computing (with industrial placement)Or Business and Finance where you can learn how to make people consume and buy mooooore!
I thought you learned about cocaine and getting others to do your work.
Well OC, I did mention Business and Finance
Did one of their worst students in graphic design make this?
It’s fucking awful.
Why is “on trees” circled?
Why is the first “think” crossed out.
Why would I think again when they dismissed my first attempt?
What is the significance of the paper in the centre being torn?
Is WiFi the issue?
Is screen time the issue?
What if I use WiFi without my screen?
What if I put my phone in aeroplane mode?
Do they want us reading newspapers or some shit?
Isn’t cutting down trees also kinda shit for the environment?
Meritocracy never existed.
The first think is crossed out because you’re not supposed to think. You’re supposed to feel… feel bad about using your phone. It’s like it’s designed to turn any opinion against any other opinion.
The light that powers that sign likely uses more power than is going to be saved by people turning their screens off because of it
oh fuck off with that logic, a message needs a platform to be heard. Yelling at the top of your lungs about the axe-murderer isnt going to get you anywhere if you’re in his basement with the bodies. Get on his roof and yell
This isn’t a worthwhile message.
They could always use a poster…
“But the trees used to cut that poster and the glue used to put it up, along with the lighting needed to make it visible at a distance would incur unforgiveable costs on this planet…”
It IS a poster with a backlight that was already there.
This isn’t BP throwing out a million dollar PR campaign to improve their image after polluting the ocean, this is a university putting out a PSA to drum interest about sustainable ways of using our digital devices.
They printed a poster and rented an illuminated poster board that was already there to do so. It’s the same contradiction as using a diesel train to attend Friday for Future’s rally. Sometimes you have to just have to use the most practical medium to get your message out
What exactly is this PSA telling people? The message seems to just be “screens use electricity, and we’re doing vague sustainability research around that”.
I think this could have been a spam email and it would have achieved the same outcome. Not to mention that electricity is getting greener by the day, and personal device usage is such a small portion of electricity use it might as well be zero
Well I typed in the link to their page, and it’s… nothing. They’re literally not saying anything, just talking about some bs initatives with their corporate sponsors. Yes, fine, this is silly nonsense
deleted by creator
one viral AI avatar or “Barbie Box” image can consume enough energy to fully charge an electric car several times.
A Model 3 battery is 200,000-300,000 kiloJoules.
Absolute worst case for an image, even taking very extreme estimates and amortizing out all the training, is like 30 kJ. Maybe 70 kJ for a slop video that takes under a minute to render, which is on the order of browsing Lemmy on a laptop for a bit. For reference, a local generation with FLUX dev on my 3090 is 2 kJ per image, and that’s relatively inefficient.
I’m just saying, that is a bad comparison, as EVs take an absolute truckload of electricity to run.
I don’t think anybody turns their phones on thinking “I wonder what halfbaked AI generated video i can watch now?”
xD, so true, my mind wandered the wrong way!
AI slop is a different topic.
True!
The climate after i send electromagnetic waves at 2.4 GHz frequency:
Updated version of the “turn the water off while you’re brushing your teeth” ads in the 80s/90s. If you can afford ad spend, you’re a bigger problem than the people targeted by it.
If you wanted my screen time to be more efficient, please explain all these JS and CSS frameworks you are requiring me to load.
“YOUR screen time is destroying the environment!” Says screen that is using electricity 24/7.
The fluorescent tubes to power this thing all day for months probably uses more power than my router does in its life time.
This is part of a larger UK campaign to make people feel bad about energy usage while Starmer is filling increasingly large amounts of UK infrastructure with AI stuff that requires 100x the amount of power.
Only 100x?
Segregate your garbage so we can later throw it all into the same heap anyways.
Remember to turn off every power source when you leave home everyday the whole year to compensate for one day of McDonald’s signboard glowing 24/7.
Lease an overpriced EV so that the planet may survive another billionaire’s wedding.
This is our collective duty to pay for the lavish lifestyle of the 1%.
I just stopped buying stuff…I buy food, that’s it. my garbage has gone from 3 bags biweekly, 2etal and 3 cardboard down to maybe 2 garbage, half a metal one and maybe 1 cardboard.
it’s amazing how much garbage they force on us when we buy companies junk
sometimes there’s more packaging costs then product…it’s absurd.
Ok but have you considered that if literally every person on the planet did this, climate change would immediately be fixed??
You’re just a HATER of practical solutions… /s
Please tell me you forgot the /s ?
Thought it was obvious given how “every person in the world” and “practical” was in the same comment lol
If everyone turned off their smartphones for a day it would account for less than 1% of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet in that day.
If you have a fridge in your house it’s likely using almost 100 times more power than your smartphone. Your heating or air conditioning is using far more power. The steel industry, agricultural industry, transportation, are all pumping out greenhouse gasses at a rate that using electronics is negligible.
AI is becoming another one of those industries, but if everyone turned off their personal devices, they would still need to get up, go to work, which would likely use AI, because they need to buy groceries and pay rent and keep their home powered, and capitalism churns.
Being outraged at the systems around us is a good thing, pointing the outrage toward people living daily lives while wealthy corporations and people do everything in their power to do as little as possible for social good while farming maximum personal benefit, power, and profit is not.
Phone: under 5 watts. Heating: 10kW heat pump
Worrying about your phone energy cost would be fairly dumb. Usage/battery life can be a valid consideration of course.
This is the funny thing, Capitalism basically ensures, even if it were magically practical, it still wouldn’t work. Even in utopia, where everyone was super-pooper efficient and saved 99% electricity usage overnight, just one profit-seeking business (and they’re all profit seeking businesses) would buy up all the cheap electricity, use their enormous energy advantage to make a bazillion dollars, and use so much power that we’d go right back to 100% (or more) electricity consumption.
The narrative of the ‘if every individual did <x>’ is pure myth. Systemic problems can only be solved by systemic solutions.
These are great, thank you for putting them together.
Unfortunately that’s not even scratching the surface
Keep going, they’re good comparisons.
Individualistic solutions to systemic problems have zero chance of working.
they 100% work.
that’s why they do it.
they make sure to shift the blame, to make sure the system remains unchanged and people who are profiting from what is basically omniside keep profiting from killing the planet and everyone in it.
They don’t work though, they just convince people it does.
you missed my point.
it works because the intended purpose is to shift blame and avoid any actual regulations/policies that will actually solve the problem.
they work because the intended purpose is to increase profits and fuck over everyone
Is that advert backlit ALL DAY?
Think. Think again.Think about industrial energy use and lack of government enforcing landlords to install insulation and solarEh, I can give a pass to this because even if it wasn’t this ad, another one would be in its place burning the same amount of energy.
If this university hadnt bought this meaningless advert it would have a tiny reduction in the demand for advertising potentially leading to less always lit billboards being made. So no, they dont get a pass for it.
I think a fairer argument is to see how many people actually reduced their screen time. Then, see if that offset the run time of this ad. In that case, this sign doesn’t get a pass because we all know the answer to that question.
Wouldn’t it still be more useful to display an ad criticizing this kind of 24/7 lit ad?
I agree with you. Most energy comes from renewables these days, and your wi-fi usage is a negligible amount in the scale of things. How about going after corporate energy waste like AI instead?
AI is negligible compared to Coal & private jets etc. Or just gross spending by billionaires
It currently is negligible. Depending on how long this hype train lasts it may stop being negligible. Coal is on the decline. Private jets and careless billionaires are growing problems, but not as fast as ai. All need handling one way or another.
I’m anti-ai for privacy, copyright reasons etc.
But the environmental impact is negligible, streaming Netflix uses way more resources than thousands of AI prompts (including training)
If we watched less YouTube it would make a much bigger difference than if we didn’t use AI
Fair point, after some googling I see I was significantly overestimating ais impact despite your comment previous comment, my bad.
Do you have a source for the streaming v AI power consumption thing? I don’t want to be an ass, just genuinely curious. When I run jellyfin and stream something from my home server, it draws 35 watts. If I run an ai model on my GPU, it draws way more than that.
I can’t remember where I first saw it, I quickly found this
https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversations-about
Maybe not the best source, but tl:dr one ChatGPT prompt uses ~3watts including the training.
10min of 4k video streaming uses significantly more than a lot of prompts
But most people don’t stream in 4k
Maybe not, but streaming an hour of 1080p also uses a lot of resources compared to AI
Weird take…
