Technology

59402 readers

4099 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

681

Google and Microsoft consume more power than some countries (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 4 months ago by lemmee_in@lemm.ee to c/technology@lemmy.world

72 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In 2023, Google and Microsoft each consumed 24 TWh of electricity, surpassing the consumption of over 100 nations, including places like Iceland, Ghana, and Tunisia, according to an analysis by Michael Thomas. While massive energy usage means a substantial environmental impact for these tech giants, it should be noted that Google and Microsoft also generate more money than many countries. Furthermore, companies like Intel, Google, and Microsoft lead renewable energy adoption within the industry.

Detailed analysis reveals that Google's and Microsoft's electricity consumption — 24 TWh in 2023 — equals the power consumption of Azerbaijan (a nation of 10.14 million) and is higher than that of several other countries. For instance, Iceland, Ghana, the Dominican Republic, and Tunisia each consumed 19 TWh, while Jordan consumed 20 TWh. Of course, some countries consume more power than Google and Microsoft. For example, Slovakia, a country with 5.4 million inhabitants, consumes 26 TWh.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No, it's not.

Them making money implies that they are being paid to use power, which is true. Their absolute carbon footprint is irrelevant given that most of what the carbon they use is at the request of someone else. The metric to judge them on is their carbon footprint relevant to peers.

I.e. it's not fair to judge a cab company for driving someone somewhere (judge the person choosing to hire a cab), but it is fair to judge them if they use gas guzzlers instead of EVs.

[–] ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

what are you on about, mate? who's paying for copilot's adoption? who's funding the disparaging of the medieval term for a minstrel with a song?

who's paying you for this absurd take?

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

As of last year ~70% of software developers were using copilot or a similar AI assistant. The legal field has seen a drop off in junior hires because of AI assistants. Snapchat's AI filters and tools have long been a huge draw for that platform (and then copied by everyone else to avoid bleeding users), and Bing saw massive user growth after integrating OpenAI.

AI has problems and limitations but it's absurd to think there's no demand for it just because it's pushed by annoying people. Everything with hype will get pushed by annoying people.

[–] awesome_lowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

~70% of software developers were using copilot or a similar AI assistant

That's interesting, do you have a source?

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

It was the Stack Overflow developer survey I believe

[–] kurap1ka@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

I think he's partially right. Azure, AWS etc. are running workloads which would otherwise run in a bazillion smaller data centers. I still believe something is wrong as all those giants promise to run their data centers super duper green and sustainable..