alt Hacker NewsAgain: the point remains that the sustained growth rate matters far more than the starting point.
And again: it usually doesn't. Most growth trends follow a sigmoid rather than exponential curve.
You're arguing against points I'm not making.
The point I am making is to keep an eye on the growth trend (and whatever might constrain that, you've given some credible concerns here), rather than the starting magnitude.
The question of how much societal resource information services can plausibly consume over a long term is an interesting one. Looking at biological analogues, the human brain accounts for roughly 25% of our own metabolic output, which I suspect is the present record.[1]
I get 8% for total present use in commercial computing, with the US EIA projecting a pretty steady growth to exceed all refrigeration, lighting, space cooling, and ventilation, by 2050, at about 350% of present levels. It looks as if that analysis presumes a 5% annual growth rate. The full report does incorporate AI in its considerations.
<https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65564>
Specifically:
We assume AI servers will increasingly skew more energy intensive, the installed stock of AI servers grows exponentially through at least 2040, and computational efficiency will increase over time. In our High Electricity Demand case, we assume the exponential growth in AI servers will continue through 2050, and the rate of improvement in server computational efficiency will reflect historical trends.
Full report: <https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/narrative/>
Notes: ________________________________
1. Apparently among vertebrates typical metabolic fraction is between 2--8%, though there may be some tree shrews which approach humans as a percentage if not total CNS metabolic magnitude. "Ratio of central nervous system to body metabolism in vertebrates: Its constancy and functional basis" (1981) <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15916066_Ratio_of_c...>.
Socially, our computational energy is on the high side for vertebrate animals.
>to keep an eye on the growth trend
I will be, mostly to add it to the bucket of trends that didn't continue forever as predicted.
>The question of how much societal resource information services can plausibly consume over a long term is an interesting one.
I dont know if biology is a really good model?
>You're arguing against points I'm not making.
No I think I am right on the money.
Small thing increases exponentially compounding every other week, for 2 weeks. Still a small thing.
Small thing increases exponentially for a decade. Now a big thing.
Datacenters increasing at the current rate for a couple more years before hitting several very hard walls. Still a small thing.
If they go from 24 times less water consumption than golf courses as far as 15 times less water consumption than golf courses I would be surprised.