Comment on Why using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment
sbv@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
It would be fantastic if our other GHG-producing activities were held to the same level of criticism as AI.
You’re gonna get downvotes defending AI on Lemmy - our Overton window is ^tiny^.
A ChatGPT prompt uses 3 Wh. This is enough energy to:
Leave a single incandescent light bulb on for 3 minutes.
Leave a wireless router on for 30 minutes.
Play a gaming console for 1 minute.
Run a vacuum cleaner for 10 seconds.
Run a microwave for 10 seconds
Run a toaster for 8 seconds
Brew coffee for 10 seconds
Use a laptop for 3 minutes. ChatGPT could write this post using less energy than your laptop uses over the time you read it.
socphoenix@midwest.social 3 days ago
*as long as we don’t count the shit load of electricity spent training the model.
AnonomousWolf@lemmy.world 3 days ago
It’s already included in the 3Wh calculation
hisao@ani.social 3 days ago
Which is only ever done once. Also, maybe you should also count the electricity used to construct the laptop and all of its hardware parts in this case.
socphoenix@midwest.social 3 days ago
They only raise beef once too unless you’re pretending there only one ai model ever trained you’re purposefully trying to create a false narrative.
hisao@ani.social 3 days ago
You’re being a sophist by comparing those. It’s non-comparable type of periodicity. AI doesn’t need continuous training to function. In theory, eveyone could just stop and settle on models we have already and they would continue to work forever. Training models is only needed for creating better improved models. And you can count really big models like ChatGPT ones on fingers. You can’t raise beef once and keep people fed forever. Raising beef has the same type of periodicity as running already-trained model, something that is continuously done for industry to function.