3 ms·
Just a quick glance shows that they consider the overall emissions of a persons day to day life to be involved in the act of writing: "The emission footprint o
by kamranjon 3y ago
Just a quick glance shows that they consider the overall emissions of a persons day to day life to be involved in the act of writing:
"The emission footprint of a US resident is approximately 15 metric tons CO2e per year (14), or approximately 1.7kg CO2e per hour. Therefore, assuming that a person’s emissions while writing are in line with their overall annual impact, we propose that the carbon footprint for a US resident generating a page of text (250 words) is approximately 1400 grams CO2e."
That's a pretty big assumption, which seems hardly scientific. You would think that they would isolate the act of writing and measure that against the CO2 emissions of equivalent AI.
- allears 3y agoThey should also measure the CO2 emissions of a human at resting state vs. a human engaged in the act of writing. This would reveal the exact 'cost' of human writing.
- panarky 3y agoThey should also measure the CO2 emissions of all the humans who wrote all the words that the AI was trained on.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago> That's a pretty big assumption, which seems hardly scientific. It's hard not to point out that the authors aren't scholars in this field, but essentially AI apologists.