[atoav]

Are you sure you aren't deep in cognitive-dissonance land now?

More energy use overall — momentary or over time (=work), doesn't make a difference here — especially with LLMs which aren't exactly producing bursty loads and could be in theory scheduled to any time of the day. And energy corps will just have to produce more energy, which has it's own negative externalities on the world.

That means my stupid project still has an impact on the rest of the world. As of now everybody luckily still has the luxury to figure this out themselves. But we have to realize that depending on how bad things get this won't be feasible forever. And how fast things get bad depends on our collective energy use. If you're in a desert with limited water you won't let your kid pour it on the water because it makes a fun sound wouldn't you?

You would only let your kid do that if you had no mental model of water being a limited resouece and no imagination of the consequences a lack of water would mean for you and your kid.

Energy is a limited resource and producing more of it has it's own secondary costs (e.g. for climate change).

Operating with limited resources doesn't mean we are not allowed to have fun. It just means you don't pour your limited resource on the ground for it.

[PeterisP]

One man's "pour your limited resource on the ground" is another man's "valuable use of that resource" - if they're choosing to do something with the energy they purchase, apparently they consider that this is a worthwhile use of that resource. If I'm in the desert and want to pour some water on the ground for growing orchids, that's my choice on how to use it - if it's really important to conserve water, then it will be costly enough so that I won't waste much of it on luxuries, but if it's cheap enough to do so, then people are voting with their wallets that it's NOT really (yet?) so important to conserve it so much as to refuse spending that on luxuries.