How are claims about "X technology uses as much energy as a small nation" evaluated? - eviltoast

I see news stories that will give examples of how much energy a type of technology uses (usually AI or crypto). They’ll claim very big numbers like the whole ecosystem using “as much as a small country” or one instance of use being “as much as an average home uses in a year.”

With the crypto ecosystem being so big and I’m less inclined to defend it, I haven’t thought as much about the claims. But with AI while it still has problematic aspects, it also has a lot of useful applications. When I run a single query the idea it’s the same energy as driving my car ten miles or whatever doesn’t seem to pass the smell test.

How are these numbers generated? Historically media doesn’t do great with science reporting (“a cure for cancer was just invented” etc) so just trying to get some context/perspective.

  • LesserAbe@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    After posting this I just read this Ars Technica article where the headline says crypto uses over 2% of U.S. electric generation, but then if you click through to the source, it says a preliminary estimate is between .6% and 2.3%.

    • doctordevice@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      And this is why scientists tend to dislike science journalism. Whether intentional or not, it misses out the nuance that scientific findings usually require. And then those misrepresented facts start getting quoted elsewhere until you get a web of “sources” that just point in a circle and can eventually cut out the actual source that includes the nuance.

      Always be skeptical of journalism headlines and check the body. Then be skeptical of that and check the source. Then still remain skeptical of that because one study doesn’t determine scientific consensus. Before long you’ll be in the rabbit hole of the replication crisis.

      But don’t write off science. It’s flawed because humans are flawed, but it’s still our best tool for determining truth.

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        The worst part about the headlines is that they’re usually not made by anyone scientifically literate, but by editors who just want the site to get more clicks. Even if the article itself articulates fantastically what the scientists are saying, all it takes is an editor putting a clickbait headline on it for the average reader (let’s be honest, skimmer) to ignore the good reporting and only remember the inaccurate headline.