974
Black Mirror AI (mander.xyz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 64 points 11 hours ago

Nice ..... I look forward to the next generation of AI counter counter measures that will make the internet an even more unbearable mess in order to funnel as much money and control to a small set of idiots that think they can become masters of the universe and own every single penny on the planet.

[-] IndiBrony@lemmy.world 42 points 10 hours ago

All the while as we roast to death because all of this will take more resources than the entire energy output of a medium sized country.

[-] vivendi@programming.dev 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

I will cite the scientific article later when I find it, but essentially you're wrong.

[-] lipilee@feddit.nl 3 points 1 hour ago

water != energy, but i'm actually here for the science if you happen to find it.

[-] vivendi@programming.dev 1 points 1 hour ago

This particular graph is because a lot of people freaked out over "AI draining oceans" that's why the original paper (I'll look for it when I have time, I have a exam tomorrow. Fucking higher ed man) made this graph

[-] Sorse@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 hour ago
[-] vivendi@programming.dev 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

According to https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.21015

The absolute most monstrous, energy guzzling model tested needed 10 MW of power to train.

Most models need less than that, and non-frontier models can even be trained on gaming hardware with comparatively little energy consumption.

That paper by the way says there is a 2.4x increase YoY for model training compute, BUT that paper doesn't mention DeepSeek, which rocked the western AI world with comparatively little training cost (2.7 M GPU Hours in total)

Some companies offset their model training environmental damage with renewable and whatever bullshit, so the actual daily usage cost is more important than the huge cost at the start (Drop by drop is an ocean formed - Persian proverb)

[-] xthexder@l.sw0.com 1 points 1 hour ago

Asking ChatGPT a question doesn't take 1 hour like most of these... this is a very misleading graph

[-] vivendi@programming.dev 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

This is actually misleading in the other direction: ChatGPT is a particularly intensive model. You can run a GPT-4o class model on a consumer mid to high end GPU which would then use something in the ballpark of gaming in terms of environmental impact.

You can also run a cluster of 3090s or 4090s to train the model, which is what people do actually, in which case it's still in the same range as gaming. (And more productive than 8 hours of WoW grind while chugging a warmed up Nutella glass as a drink).

Models like Google's Gemma (NOT Gemini these are two completely different things) are insanely power efficient.

[-] xthexder@l.sw0.com 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

I didn't even say which direction it was misleading, it's just not really a valid comparison to compare a single invocation of an LLM with an unrelated continuous task.

You're comparing Volume of Water with Flow Rate. Or if this was power, you'd be comparing Energy (Joules or kWh) with Power (Watts)

Maybe comparing asking ChatGPT a question to doing a Google search (before their AI results) would actually make sense. I'd also dispute those "downloading a file" and other bandwidth related numbers. Network transfers are insanely optimized at this point.

[-] vivendi@programming.dev 1 points 1 hour ago

I can't really provide any further insight without finding the damn paper again (academia is cooked) but Inference is famously low-cost, this is basically "average user damage to the environment" comparison, so for example if a user chats with ChatGPT they gobble less water comparatively than downloading 4K porn (at least according to this particular paper)

As with any science, statistics are varied and to actually analyze this with rigor we'd need to sit down and really go down deep and hard on the data. Which is more than I intended when I made a passing comment lol

[-] DeathsEmbrace@lemm.ee 8 points 10 hours ago

Actually if you think about it AI might help climate change become an actual catastrophe.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 5 points 7 hours ago

It is already!

[-] Prox@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

We're racing towards the Blackwall from Cyberpunk 2077...

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee -1 points 4 hours ago

Already there. The blackwall is AI-powered and Markov chains are most definitely an AI technique.

this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
974 points (98.9% liked)

Science Memes

14646 readers
2612 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS