this reeks of AI generating it
A cheat sheet for why using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment
Submitted 6 days ago by anus@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversations-about
Comments
carrion0409@lemm.ee 6 days ago
Everytime I see a post like this I lose a little more faith in humanity
anus@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Every time I see a comment like this I lost a little more faith in lemmy
carrion0409@lemm.ee 6 days ago
Cry more
TootSweet@lemmy.world 6 days ago
ChatGPT
Arm yourself with knowledge
Bruh
Beppe_VAL@feddit.it 6 days ago
Even Sam Altman acknowledged last year the huge amount of energy needed by chatgpt, and the need for a breakthrough in energy breakthrough…
anus@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Do you hold Sam Altman’s opinion higher than the reasoning here? In general or just on this particular take?
Neverclear@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 days ago
What would Altman gain from overstating the environmental impact of his own company?
What if power consumption is not so much limited by the software’s appetite, but rather by the hardware’s capabilities?
Dekkia@this.doesnotcut.it 6 days ago
I struggle to see why numerous scientists (and even Sam ‘AI’ Altman) would be wrong about this but a random substack post holds the truth.
Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Having read the entire post, i think there’s a misunderstanding :
- this post is about ChatGPT and LLM chatbots in general, not AI as a whole.
- This post claims to be 100% aligned with scientists and that AI as a whole is bad for the environment.
- What they claim is that chatbots are only 1-3% of AI use and yet benefit to 400 million people (rest is mostly business stuff and serves more entreprises or very specific needs), therefore they do not consume much by themselves (just like we could keep 1-3% of cars going and be just fine with environment)
anus@lemmy.world 6 days ago
-
Have you read the post?
-
If you’d like to refute the content on the grounds of another scientist, can you please provide a reference? I will read it
-
superkret@feddit.org 3 days ago
tl/dr: “Yes it is, but not as much as other things do stop worrying.”
What a bullshit take.
anus@lemmy.world 3 days ago
What makes this a bullshit take? Focusing attention on actual problems is a great way to make progress
MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 6 days ago
A cheat sheet on how to argue your passion positive.
anus@lemmy.world 3 days ago
I’m not familiar with the term
Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world 5 days ago
I was very sceptical at first, but this article kinda convinced me. I think it still has some bad biases (it often only considers 1 chatgpt request in its comparisons, when in reality you quickly make dozens of them, it often says ‘how weird to try and save tiny amounts of energy’ when we do that already with lights when leaving rooms, water when brushing teeths, it focuses on energy (to train, cool and generate electricity) and not on logistics and hardware required), but overall two arguments got me :
- one chatgpt request seems to consume around 3Wh, which is relatively low
- even with daily billions of requests, chatbots seems to represent less than 5% of AI power consumption, which is the real problem and lies in the hand of corporates.
jonathan@lemmy.zip 6 days ago
ChatGPT energy costs are highly variable depending on context length. How have you factored that in?
anus@lemmy.world 6 days ago
This isn’t my article and yes that’s controlled for
NeilBru@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Self-hosted LLMs are the way.
AcesFullOfKings@feddit.uk 6 days ago
[deleted]NeilBru@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Oof, ok, my apologies.
I am, admittedly,0 “GPU rich”; I have at ~48GB of VRAM at my disposal on my main workstation, and 24GB on my gaming rig. Thus, I am using Q8 and Q6_L quantized
GGUFs.Naturally, my experience with the “fidelity” of my LLM models re: hallucinations would be better.
anus@lemmy.world 6 days ago
I actually think that (presently) self hosted LLMs are much worse for hallucination
Vanth@reddthat.com 6 days ago
Is environmental impact on the top of anyones list for why they don’t like ChatGPT? It’s not on mine nor on anyones I have talked to.
The two most common reasons I hear are 1) no trust in the companies hosting the tools to protect consumers and 2) rampant theft of IP to train LLM models.
The author moves away from strict environmental focus despite claims to the contrary in their intro,
[…]
… yet doesn’t address the most common criticisms.
Worse, the author accuses anyone who pauses to think of the negatives of ChatGPT of being absurdly illogical.
IDK what logical fallacy this is but claiming people are “freaking out over 3Wh” is very disingenuous.
Rating as basic content: 2/10, poor and disingenuous argument
Rating as example of AI writing: 5/10, I’ve certainly seen worse AI slop
anus@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Thank you for your considered and articulate comment
What do you think about the significant difference in attitude between comments here and in (quite serious) programming communities like lobste.rs/…/cheat_sheet_for_why_using_chatgpt_is_…
Are we in different echo chambers? Is chatgpt a uniquely powerful tool for programmers? Is social media a fundamentally Luddite mechanism?
Vanth@reddthat.com 5 days ago
You’re on an open forum here, versus a substack where people are encouraged to subscribe and donate to writers they like.
Which do you think is more likely to offer comments with narrow perspectives?
Rooki@lemmy.world 6 days ago
I would say GitHub copilot ( that uses a gpt model ) uses more Wh than chatgpt, because it gets blasted more queries on average because the “AI” autocomplete just triggers almost every time you stop typing or on random occasions.