If the project doesn't have to be a traditional crypto, but just an alternative payment system, there's probably some stuff already. I've bumped into community based time tracking software before that had a similar goal of making sure folks were compensated for taking care of common spaces and neighbors.
I think we could somewhat reasonably setup a labor voucher network where participating organizations and people can compensate other individuals with single use vouchers for time worked, that can then be used at that same network of participating companies. Like all monetary like systems its subject to many potential exploits, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are already some decent technical and social solutions for many of them.
I'm cool with being wrong about this, but unfortunately haven't found a solid source recently to indicate either way (maybe another day I'll have time to find one, but not today)
Unfortunately my comparison was obv apples to oranges, but id find it at least a little bit surprising if a continuously running and rendering process like a game would use the same amount of energy in the same amount of time as a user interacting with a chatbot that only uses a GPU on request. Yes, if a user was continuously feeding input in and generating output from a llm that seems trivially true that it would use more energy, but thats not how it would be used in this case.
Also, training is a fair point for end-to-end analysis but I don't even know how we would start that for total energy cost for developing a game, hence leaving that out of discussion. (Edit: I assume, because of all the attention on llms in recent years, that training an llm costs significantly more than developing a game (how ever we would fence off both measurements), but that is even more vibes based analysis than my original assumption earlier in the thread)
I tend to agree regarding the environmental angle to abolish llms, but in cases like this I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. I don't have the resource usage numbers, but if I had to venture a guess regarding environment cost the actual cost of using an llm for something like this vs playing baldurs gate 3 for a similar experience, surely bg3 would blow the llm usage (not training) costs out of the water. The environmental cost of buying a printed DnD rulebook would also by itself be more.
Granted, a user could just find a PDF or whatever, but thats not really my point in this case. I just think we probably need to have concrete understanding of the costs of llms (and where it comes from) when levying critiques of the technology.
Just curious, were you not particularly spiritual before transitioning? Sometimes I feel like there's a cool witchy person in me but the less cool annoyling pessimistic and atheist side tends to win out. also both sides feel oddly gendered for whatever reason.
NGL I feel like I'm on a similar trajectory but still at the "still cis tho" phase, and have been for a long time now. Not really sure how to get started on trying out different elements of transitioning tbh, but I just bought a new dress that I really like so I guess I'll start there. No idea where to go after lmao
I'm too lazy to look for any of their documentation about this, but it would be pretty bold to believe privacy or processing claims from OpenAI or similar AI orgs, given their history flouting copyright.
Silicon valley more generally just breaks laws and regulations to "disrupt". Why wouldn't an org like OpenAI at least leave a backdoor for themselves to process API requests down the road as a policy change? Not that they would need to, but it's not uncommon for a co to leave an escape hatch in their policies.
I gotta say, the C02 number seems very high to me too, just got that from a quick search and saw that a couple of times. I haven't investigated it closely tbh.
I wasn't aware of the mining differences between uranium and thorium, that is encouraging.
Regarding the waste, that's a fair point as well. Thanks for the response! Interesting points.
I used to be very pro nuclear energy. Besides the waste and the occasional meltdown it seemed like a no brainer as a renewable supplement. After learning a little more about it though it just seems like we have more runway for positive growth with wind and solar than nuclear, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
From what I understand nuclear in general is (at least now) a dead end as a climate change solution.
From planning time to turning on the reactor is something like 15 - 20 years (note, that's longer than the global average of 7 years for construction, because construction is not the whole picture)
It's difficult to have more than 1 plant project ongoing simultaneously due to the scale and complexity
Nuclear plants take a lot of C02 to construct and maintain. The fuel has to be mined, resulting in emissions, and the amount of concrete required massive. 1 ton of concrete creates .8-.9 tons of C02, and a nuclear power plant has hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete in it.
We still don't have a good answer for handling nuclear waste.
Maybe at some point in the past nuclear could have resolved many climate change issues, but between project time, initial emission cost, and waste, it just doesn't seem viable anymore.
Are they? I watch YouTube on Firefox all the time, seems fine on my machine.
I think maybe 5+ years ago there were some performance issues caused by YT relying on features that were only implemented in Chrome, but I don't recall having any issues wrt that for years.
You're right about the Snopes article. It does do a decent job of pointing out that a lot of this reporting is rumor based.
This first anecdote (also highlighted by Snopes) is amusing
Double-hit cases" have been around for decades. I first heard of the "hit-to-kill" phenomenon in Taiwan in the mid-1990s when I was working there as an English teacher. A fellow teacher would drive us to classes. After one near-miss of a motorcyclist, he said, "If I hit someone, I'll hit him again and make sure he's dead." Enjoying my shock, he explained that in Taiwan, if you cripple a man, you pay for the injured person's care for a lifetime. But if you kill the person, you "only have to pay once, like a burial fee." He insisted he was serious—and that this was common.
So is it Taiwan or the mainland with these wild laws?
They did? Apparently I missed the follow up, but guess its not really surprising