Thinking about the energy “footprint” of artificial intelligence products makes it a good time to re-link to Mark Kaufman’s excellent 2020 Mashable article in which he explores the idea of a carbon footprint:

The genius of the “carbon footprint” is that it gives us something to ostensibly do about the climate problem. No ordinary person can slash 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions. But we can toss a plastic bottle into a recycling bin, carpool to work, or eat fewer cheeseburgers. “Psychologically we’re not built for big global transformations,” said John Cook, a cognitive scientist at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. “It’s hard to wrap our head around it.”

Ogilvy & Mather, the marketers hired by British Petroleum, wove the overwhelming challenges inherent in transforming the dominant global energy system with manipulative tactics that made something intangible (carbon dioxide and methane — both potent greenhouse gases — are invisible), tangible. A footprint. Your footprint.

The framing of most of the A.I. articles I have seen thankfully shies away from ascribing individual blame; instead, they point to systemic flaws. This is preferable, but it still does little at the scale of electricity generation worldwide.

⌥ Permalink

Casey Crownhart, MIT Technology Review:

Today, new analysis by MIT Technology Review provides an unprecedented and comprehensive look at how much energy the AI industry uses — down to a single query — to trace where its carbon footprint stands now, and where it’s headed, as AI barrels towards billions of daily users.

We spoke to two dozen experts measuring AI’s energy demands, evaluated different AI models and prompts, pored over hundreds of pages of projections and reports, and questioned top AI model makers about their plans. Ultimately, we found that the common understanding of AI’s energy consumption is full of holes.

This robust story comes on the heels of a series of other discussions about how much energy is used by A.I. products and services. Last month, for example, Andy Masley published a comparison of using ChatGPT against other common activities. The Economist ran another, and similar articles have been published before. As far as I can tell, they all come down to the same general conclusion: training A.I. models is energy-intensive, using A.I. products is not, lots of things we do online and offline have a greater impact on the environment, and the current energy use of A.I. is the lowest it will be from now on.

There are lots of good reasons to critique artificial intelligence. I am not sure its environmental impact is a particularly strong one; I think the true energy footprint of tech companies, of which A.I. is one part, is more relevant. Even more pressing, however, is our need to electrify our world as much as we can, and that will require a better and cleaner grid.

⌥ Permalink

Kylie Robinson, of the Verge, obtained internal sales data from Humane. Not only is the A.I. Pin not selling super well, but many of them are being returned. That is a huge frustration, I imagine, for lots of people who worked on this product. Also, maybe it is simply an indicator it is not very good: for its own reasons, and also perhaps because it is hard to start a new platform, and maybe because integrating with established platforms is often a struggle.

That is what everyone is talking about. I wanted to highlight a different part of Robinson’s thorough report:

Once a Humane Pin is returned, the company has no way to refurbish it, sources with knowledge of the return process confirmed. The Pin becomes e-waste, and Humane doesn’t have the opportunity to reclaim the revenue by selling it again. The core issue is that there is a T-Mobile limitation that makes it impossible (for now) for Humane to reassign a Pin to a new user once it’s been assigned to someone. One source said they don’t believe Humane has disposed of the old Pins because “they’re still hopeful they can solve this problem eventually.” T-Mobile declined to comment and referred us to Humane.

It is inexcusable for a device to be launched in 2024 without considering the environmental effects of its disposal. Perhaps Humane can recover some of the hardware components for reuse or recycling — this is unclear to me — but for a product to be useful only to its original owner is terrible, even for its first generation.

⌥ Permalink

Louise Matsakis, Big Technology:

Shein and Temu’s users aren’t just browsing. Shein reportedly earned roughly $45 billion last year, and is currently trying to go public. PDD Holdings, Temu’s Chinese parent company, reported earlier this week that its revenue surged more than 130% in the first quarter. PDD is now the most valuable e-commerce company in China.

The two startups are sending so many orders from China to the US that it’s causing air cargo rates to spike, and USPS workers have said publicly that they are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of Temu’s signature bright orange packages they have to deliver. “I’m tired of this Temu shit, ya’ll killing me,” one mailman said in a TikTok video last year with over two million likes. “Everyday it’s Temu, Temu, Temu — I’m Temu tired.”

You might recognize how both Shein and Temu grew using the same tactic as TikTok: relentless advertising. (Which is something Snap CEO Evan Spiegel complained about despite TikTok’s huge spending on Snapchat.)

Both these companies are an aggressive distillation of plentiful supply and low cost to buyers. For people with lower incomes or who are economically stressed, the extreme affordability they offer can be a lifeline. Not everybody who shops with either fits that description; Matsakis cites a UBS report finding an average Shein customer earns $65,000 per year and spends more than $100 per month on clothes. But there are surely plenty of people who shop on both sites — and Amazon — because they simply cannot afford to buy anywhere else.

Every time I think about these retailers, I cannot shake a pervasive sadness. Saddened by how some people in rich countries have been compromised so much they rely on stores they may have moral qualms with. Saddened by the ripple effect of exploitation. Saddened by the environmental cost of producing, shipping, and disposing of these often brittle products — a wasteful exercise for many customers who can afford longer-lasting goods, and the many people who cannot.

Derek Guy has written about the brutality of the garment industry in the U.S., but notes how clearly different these fast and ultra-fast fashion brands are from inexpensive clothing:

Given the opacity in the supply chain, your best single measure for whether something is amiss is price. If you are paying $5 for a cut-and-sewn shirt, something bad is happening. Does this mean that every expensive shirt was ethically made? No. But you know the $5 shirt is bad.

Guy also wrote about the difference between cheap and fast fashion.

This whole industry bums me out because I try to appreciate clothing and fashion. I like finding things I like, dressing a particular way, and putting some effort into how I present myself. Yet every peek behind the curtain is a mountain of waste and abuse, and the worst offenders are companies like Shein and Temu — and, for what it is worth, AliExpress and facilitators like Amazon.

⌥ Permalink