Open Menu
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
lotide
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
Login

A cheat sheet for why using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

⁨24⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨anus@lemmy.world⁩ to ⁨technology@lemmy.world⁩

https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversations-about

source

Comments

Sort:hotnewtop
  • Vanth@reddthat.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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,

    This post is not about the broader climate impacts of AI beyond chatbots, or about whether AI is bad for other reasons

    […]

    Other Objections, This is all a gimmick anyway. Why not just use Google? ChatGPT doesn’t give better information

    … 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.

    Being around a lot of adults freaking out over 3 Wh feels like I’m in a dream reality. It has the logic of a bad dream. Everyone is suddenly fixating on this absurd concept or rule that you can’t get a grasp of, and scolding you for not seeing the same thing. Posting long blog posts is my attempt to get out of the weird dream reality this discourse has created.

    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

    source
    • anus@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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?

      source
      • Vanth@reddthat.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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?

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • Rooki@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • mEEGal@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    this reeks of AI generating it

    source
    • anus@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      No it doesn’t

      source
  • carrion0409@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Everytime I see a post like this I lose a little more faith in humanity

    source
    • anus@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Every time I see a comment like this I lost a little more faith in lemmy

      source
      • carrion0409@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Cry more

        source
  • TootSweet@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    ChatGPT

    Arm yourself with knowledge

    Bruh

    source
  • Beppe_VAL@feddit.it ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Even Sam Altman acknowledged last year the huge amount of energy needed by chatgpt, and the need for a breakthrough in energy breakthrough…

    source
    • anus@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Do you hold Sam Altman’s opinion higher than the reasoning here? In general or just on this particular take?

      source
      • Neverclear@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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?

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • Dekkia@this.doesnotcut.it ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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.

    source
    • Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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)
      source
    • anus@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
      1. Have you read the post?

      2. If you’d like to refute the content on the grounds of another scientist, can you please provide a reference? I will read it

      source
  • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    A cheat sheet on how to argue your passion positive.

    source
    • anus@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I’m not familiar with the term

      source
  • half@lemy.lol ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Username checks out

    source
    • anus@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      🆗

      source
  • Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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.
    source
  • jonathan@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    ChatGPT energy costs are highly variable depending on context length. How have you factored that in?

    source
    • anus@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      This isn’t my article and yes that’s controlled for

      source
  • superkret@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    tl/dr: “Yes it is, but not as much as other things do stop worrying.”

    What a bullshit take.

    source
    • anus@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      What makes this a bullshit take? Focusing attention on actual problems is a great way to make progress

      source
  • NeilBru@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Self-hosted LLMs are the way.

    source
    • AcesFullOfKings@feddit.uk ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
      [deleted]
      source
      • NeilBru@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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.

        source
    • anus@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I actually think that (presently) self hosted LLMs are much worse for hallucination

      source