3 ms·

> I… don’t care? We're shaming most of the population for way less. Somehow when it comes to corporations, it's all good when they maximise shareholder pro...

• serf 2y ago
  >We're shaming most of the population for way less. none of us benefit from my neighbors' scrap wood fire, except for him. that alone drives a distinction between the two.
  • 20after4 2y ago
    Wood eventually rots and releases CO2 in the process. Burn it or let it rot, either way scrap wood returns carbon to the atmosphere.
• Ukv 2y ago
  For its energy usage claim, this article links to another article[0] which gives "about 500 metric tonnes of CO2" as the figure for the training of "ChatGPT-3". Unless I'm making a mistake, that's about 6% of Taylor Swift's annual private jet usage[1]. ChatGPT has 180 million users, and the underlying model is used through API access for a huge range of genuinely useful tasks. I think we absolutely should give more leeway to energy uses that advance technology and benefit many (ideally by being open-source) than to those that just serve the exorbitance of a few. Obviously we should still aim to reduce both. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/08/artificial-intelligence-industry-boom-environment-toll https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/08/artificia... [1]: https://i.imgur.com/EP0Gbtk.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/EP0Gbtk.jpeg