‘Thirsty’ ChatGPT uses four times more water than previously thought
‘Thirsty’ ChatGPT uses four times more water than previously thought
The massive computer clusters powering artificial intelligence consume vast quantities to answer the world’s queries, but how is Big Tech redressing the balance?
Writing a 100-word email using ChatGPT (GPT-4, latest model) consumes 1 x 500ml bottle of water It uses 140Wh of energy, enough for 7 full charges of an iPhone Pro Max
You're viewing a single thread.
Can we PLEASE shut that shit down? We were doing just fine without it.
You mean you were doing just fine without it.
You don't speak for the entire human race friendo. You don't get to decide what happens to us, and thank God. You seem too emotional and selfish to be any good at leadership.
Emotional and selfish? Right. Sooo…
• AI is ruining the environment and has yet to show any positive reason for it
• AI is taking jobs from people
• AI is destroying our art and our entertainmentBut according to you…. I’m selfish for wanting to stop it.
And where do you get the idea that I’m being to emotional? Is it just that you thought it would help you by removing any validation from my statement?
How about this:
YOU don’t get to speak for me, friendo. You don’t get to decide if I’m emotional. And thank god. You seem too ignorant to be any good at psychological diagnoses.
Lol
I don't understand the hate for AI. It's a new technology that has some teething issues, but it's only going to get better and more efficient.
it won't if you don't force it to. that's like saying companies will pollute less if you give them enough time. no, you have to grab their balls and force them to do it.
I think it's fair to say that pretty much every industry is more efficient and cleaner than it used to be and I don't see why AI would be an exception to that.
i think you're not thinking about what efficiency means for corporations.
I think it's exactly what I'm thinking about, unless I'm missing something specific that you'd like to put forward?
If I own a bottled drinks company and the energy cost is 10p a bottle but a new, more efficient process is invented that would lower my energy cost to 5p a bottle, that's going to be looking like a wise investment to make. A few pence over several thousand products adds up pretty quickly.
I could either pocket the difference as extra profit, lower my unit price to the consumer to make my product more competitive in the market, or a bit of both.
It seems basic logic like this doesn't actually work on these people. Most really can't get their heads around the fact that energy costs money and companies want to use less of it wherever possible and practical to do so.
The mob is fickle, brother.
The hive mind has concluded AI=bad and any comment that doesn't go along with the consensus is going to get downvotes.
It's really not that different from the beginning of the industrial revolution, when cotton mills first started to implement the spinning jenny, leaving many workers out of a job who'd go in to the factories at night to smash the machines up.
No one wants to go back to spinning cotton all day now though and it will be the same with jobs taken by AI.
And why do you think those improvements happen?
Is it (a) unchecked capitalism or (b) regulations?
Mainly because energy and data centers are both expensive and companies want to use as little as possible of both - especially on the energy side. OpenAI isn't exactly profitable. There is a reason companies like Microsoft release smaller models like Phi-2 that can be run on individual devices rather than data centers.
I didn't realize coal plants were concerned about data centers or AI. TIL.
But in the interest of being slightly less of a dick and responding to what you said even though it's kinda a non sequitur, companies are only vaguely interested in efficiency. I think it's more accurate to say that AI is hot for everyone right now so there's more eyes on it which makes the concept you laid out valid. Where it's invalid in my experience is that efficiency is just based on "where x executive is paying attention" not an honest attempt to look at return on investment in a rigorous way across the enterprise.
I didn't realize coal plants were concerned about data centers or AI. TIL.
What? How does that relate to anything I just said?
But in the interest of being slightly less of a dick and responding to what you said even though it's kinda a non sequitur, companies are only vaguely interested in efficiency.
How is it a non sequitur? If anything the thing you just said makes no sense. Energy is probably the biggest cost these companies have. This I believe is true even for regular data centers and cloud services which is why they always try to use the latest most energy efficient hardware. It's still not as bad as most anti-AI people seem to believe, mainly because the most energy intensive part happens only once per model (training).
I think it's more accurate to say that AI is hot for everyone right now so there's more eyes on it which makes the concept you laid out valid. Where it's invalid in my experience is that efficiency is just based on "where x executive is paying attention" not an honest attempt to look at return on investment in a rigorous way across the enterprise.
Human labour is expensive. So trying to replace it with AI, even if AI is also expensive, is typically still worth it.
You talk about experience, but I honestly don't think you have any. Do you actually work in tech? What are your qualifications? Most of the people coming here to complain about this stuff don't actually have a functional understanding of the thing they are complaining about.
Is the insinuation here that the AI industry is unregulated? Because I'm not against regulations that would drive these improvements.
No? What are you talking about?
Well your comment sounded like you were implying that regulations are needed that currently aren't there.
No, it didnt
If you say so
Correct
Until it does, we shouldn't exacerbate the climate and resource issues we already have by blindly buying into the hype and building more and larger corporate-scale power gluttons to produce even more heat than we're already dealing with.
"AI" has potential, ideas like machine assistance with writing letters and improving security by augmenting human alertness are all nice. Unfortunately, it also has destructive potential for things like surveillance, even deadlier weapons or accelerating the wealth extraction of those with the capital to invest in building aforementioned power gluttons.
Additionally, it risks misuse and overreliance, which is particularly dangerous in the current stage where it can't entirely replace humans (yet), the issues of which may not immediately become apparent until they do damage.
If and until the abilities of AI reach the point where they can compensate tech illiteracy and we no longer need to worry about the exorbitant heat production, it shouldn't be deployed at scale at all, and even then its use needs to be scrutinised, regulated and that regulation is appropriately enforced (which basically requires significant social and political change, so good luck).
If and until the abilities of AI reach the point where they can compensate tech illiteracy and we no longer need to worry about the exorbitant heat production, it shouldn't be deployed at scale at all, and even then its use needs to be scrutinised, regulated and that regulation is appropriately enforced (which basically requires significant social and political change, so good luck).
Why wouldn't you deploy that kind of AI at scale?
To be honest I think people keep forgetting that AI strong enough would be smarter than a human, and would probably end up deploying us at scale rather than the other way around. Terminator could one day actually happen. I am not even sure that would be a bad thing given how flawed humans are.
AI strong enough would be smarter than a human
General AI might be, but the type of "AI" we have right now isn't general, isn't smarter, it's just a really expensive imitation engine that people keep mistaking for actual intelligence.
And the energy consumption and heat production are really not what our global situation needs right now.
AGI and ASI are what I am referring to. Of course we don't actually have that right now, I never claimed we did.
It is hilarious and insulting you trying to "erm actually" me when I literally work in this field doing research on uses of current gen ML/AI models. Go fuck yourself.
AGI and ASI are what I am referring to. Of course we don't actually have that right now, I never claimed we did.
I was talking about the currently available technology though, its inefficiency, and the danger of tech illiteracy leading to overreliance on tools that aren't quite so "smart" yet to warrant that reliance.
I agree with your sentiment that it may well some day reach that point. If it does and the energy consumption is no longer an active concern, I do see how it could justifiably be deployed at scale.
But we also agree that "we don't actually have that right now", and with what we do have, I don't think it's reasonable. I'm happy to debate that point civilly, if you're interested in that.
It is hilarious and insulting you trying to "erm actually" me when I literally work in this field doing research on uses of current gen ML/AI models.
And how would I know that? Everyone on the Internet is an expert, how would I come to assume you're actually one? Given the misunderstanding outlined above, I assumed you were conflating the (topical) current models with the (hypothetical) future ones.
Go fuck yourself
There is no need for such hostility. I meant no insult, I just misunderstood what you were talking about and sought to correct a common misconception. Seeing how the Internet is already full of vitriol, I think we'd all do each other a favour if we tried applying Hanlon's Razor more often and look for explanations of human error instead of concluding malice.
I hope you have a wonderful week, and good luck with your ongoing research!