There are approximately 1.7 billion cars in the world right now.
That’s 1700 million for people who can’t do math.
Among many other issues (like two wrongs not making a right): This is very misleading.
The article discusses the emissions of cars on the road i.e. actively polluting , not cars in existence.
Edit: I see you are a big AI fan, so due to this conflict of interest I doubt there will be the chance of fruitful discussion of the real harm it causes.
You’re wrong. The average yearly co2 output for a car is somewhere between 4-5 tons. Which lines up with the numbers in the article. So no, it’s not actively running vehicles.
I am a fan of AI, that’s correct. That doesn’t change the fact that every single one of you chucklefucks don’t seem to understand numbers, or the scale of things in the real world.
You go on and on about how bad they are for the environment, while continuing to eat meat and drive your cars around. Both of which consume resources in a scale that makes AI look like a rounding error. Until I start hearing people protesting and actually doing something about those, I’m going to assume that your anti-AI stances are bullshit and a cover for hiding your fear that they will take over your job.
If that’s the real reason, just say it, then I will agree with you. Then we can discuss how we need to change society to deal with that problem, rather than banning AI.
It’s possible to disagree without name-calling or insulting other users. Please be mindful of the rules and norms of the instance that you are commenting on - beehaw’s overriding ethos is: Be(e) nice. Try to do so in the future.
It’s not a disagreement when someone says something that is objectively and proveably false.
This is something that people need to figure out.
They said I was misleading, then they either just strait up either lied, or didn’t bother to confirm their assumption when trying to prove that. They were wrong.
You call me out for not being nice. What they did is not nice. Call them out for that.
As someone that has worked in data centers and now is working adjacent to data centers (and I make a higher salary because of data centers), greenhouse emissions isn’t so much the problem.
The bigger problem is that planned data centers are are demanding more power than exists on the grid. This is setting us back from our plans to greenify the grid, like the article mentioned, it’s causing coal plants to remain open.
While there will be a need for data centers, and even AI data centers, the reality is that we are in an AI bubble right now. While probably near every data center in existence right now, will probably continue to be operated, many of the data centers being built in the next 5 will not. Understanding where the data center industry will be in 5 years is key to understanding how we should maintain and improve our grid. Right now we are on a path to rolling blackouts, and that will increase emissions too, and generally make life worse for everyone.
You say we like it’s everyone. It isn’t.
My province in Canada had the electricity provider cap how much gets allocated to new data centers per year at a sustainable number.
Regulation instead of outright bans are the correct path forward.
I’m just going to leave the quote from the first key article take away (the second full sentence after the headline) to justify my use of the word “we”
Sixty planned US data centers will emit 101.5 million tons of CO2 annually once operational.
Are you saying that states can’t regulate this? They absolutely can.
Nah. I’m agreeing with you that AI data centers aren’t as much of a problem in Canada because it appears that they are regulating them.
Correct, far too many.
deleted by creator
