nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 1 week ago
Of course there are comments doubting the accuracy, which by itself is valid, but they are merely doing it to defend AI. IMHO, even at a fifth of the estimates, we’re talking humongous amounts of power, all for a so-so search engine, half arsed chatbots and dubious nsfw images mostly. And let’s not forget: it may be inaccurate and estimates are TOO LOW. Now wouldn’t that be fun?
simple@piefed.social 1 week ago
No they're not, you can agree the research is garbage without defending AI. It literally assumes everything. GPT5 could be using eight times the power. It could be using half the power. It could be using a quadrillion times the power. Nobody knows, because they keep it secret.
Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
It’s highly unlikely they reduced power usage—one of the most consistent criticisms of LLM and image generation—without advertising it.
simple@piefed.social 1 week ago
It's highly unlikely they would bring more attention to one of the biggest issues AI is causing even if they did make it slightly better
nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 1 week ago
Sorry, i meant the comments under the article on toms hardware. I see this on a every tech site: research says it’s impossible amount of power used, and everyone in the comments below will do half arsed calculations with other made up numbers, trying to disprove the researcher, and always only to defend and legitimise their use of ai.
FWIW I’m not saying that the research here is garbage; it’s a decent attempt estimating by at assuming what you don’t and cannot really know, as long as an OpenAI and their doesn’t publish the data. As far as I know only Mistral published anything at all.