6 ms·

The energy usage concern is also funny in that it doesn't try to compare the energy usage of a human doing the same task (if one were to not use LLM to do the t

by godot 2y ago

The energy usage concern is also funny in that it doesn't try to compare the energy usage of a human doing the same task (if one were to not use LLM to do the task). If we assume it's true that asking ChatGPT a question costs 3 bottles of water, you should take into account how long that question takes to answer by a human doing the research. If it takes you a couple of hours, you need to include the food and drink intake it takes to power yourself for a couple of hours. If it's anything like beef or almonds it takes way more than 3 bottles of water.

worldsayshi 2y ago
I agree, with the addendum that the value of the output should also be considered here - Does the value of the work justify the cost?
nathell 2y ago
I don’t think it’s valid; you would have consumed food and drink either way. Plus, you need to verify the output of the LLM anyway.
- godot 2y ago
  If it takes you 5 minutes to verify the output of the LLM vs 3 hours to do the research work to come to an answer, you saved 2h55m of human time. You would use the 2h55m to do another task. I feel like it is indeed a valid comparison of energy usage.
  - relaxing 2y ago
    How did we go from energy consumed to human time? The caloric needs of a human are minuscule compared to the electricity converted to waste heat to train and operate an LLM.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      > How did we go from energy consumed to human time? Directly. Energy is consumed by humans over time. That time may be spent on doing tasks. Spending that time doing task increases energy consumption over baseline (though humans have substantial energy storage, so, for tasks shorter than couple hours, the cost is usually paid after such tasks). > The caloric needs of a human are minuscule compared to the electricity converted to waste heat to train and operate an LLM. The costs of operating: not really, and that's the whole point of comparison. Sure, humans are energy-efficient in some aspects - but the brains can only do so much. There's plenty of work that LLMs do faster and better than humans, so much better that no human can match them. And speed means more tasks, so energy use per task is lower. Also, if you're talking about cost of operating LLMs in general - i.e. keeping them running and doing arbitrary work, you really need to compare it against costs of keeping a human alive and available to do the work. So it's not just food, but also hygiene - including e.g. delivering water, heating water for laundry and showers, etc. - and similar consumables. As for training costs, that must be a joke. Do you know how much it costs to train a human? Energy or otherwise? As a parent of three kids I'll tell you: a lot. If you include the energy a human uses from birth to ~18, and then energy used while they're trained for whatever jobs you want to compare against AI, then the comparison gets even worse for humans.
      - relaxing 2y ago
        The humans already exist. We’re neither creating nor destroying them for the purpose of doing an LLM equivalent task, nor am I bathing or clothing myself to think up an answer to something, and evaluating the problem as though we are is a sick joke. This is the most unserious argument in favor of AI I’ve seen to date.
        godot 2y ago
        The scenario is a task needs to be done. Whether it's for business, personal, whatever. It's a task. It needs to be done somehow. It can be done by a human, or by AI. We are calculating the cost of doing this task. I don't know how else we can be more clear. Honestly I'm very unconvinced by this article author's sense of need to calculate the energy cost of the LLM as an argument against it. But if we're using it as an argument, it's only fair to compare how else the task can be completed (i.e. by the human) and what it would cost. What is there to not understand about this comparison?
dmbche 2y ago
The human being is there anyway and will eat/drink wether you ask them a question or not. I'd argue the 3 bottles of water are strickly negative compared to a human doing the same.
- godot 2y ago
  You would use those couple of hours to work on something else that isn't answering that specific questions, so IMO it is a valid comparison.
logtempo 2y ago
but you can't delete people? That's actually the big problem that need to be addressed imo. It happen now (or later) with llm, but in the past it have been a problem with industrialization (big unemployment of workers) and then globalization (unemployment of more local workers). If it's not addreased correctly, llm won't be a progress for humanity. But if you want to compare it "technically", maybe it's better to look at computer usage now vs with llm maybe (how many google request, sim failed, screen on etc.)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sensanaty 2y ago
Lol are we already at the level of psychopathy to be considering not giving humans water because they're less efficient than an LLM?
- godot 2y ago
  That is exactly what I am trying to point out; that considering the energy usage of LLM is a level of psychopathy, because that LLM is doing productive work that a human otherwise would.

by godot 2y ago

worldsayshi 2y ago

I agree, with the addendum that the value of the output should also be considered here - Does the value of the work justify the cost?

nathell 2y ago

I don’t think it’s valid; you would have consumed food and drink either way. Plus, you need to verify the output of the LLM anyway.

godot 2y ago
If it takes you 5 minutes to verify the output of the LLM vs 3 hours to do the research work to come to an answer, you saved 2h55m of human time. You would use the 2h55m to do another task. I feel like it is indeed a valid comparison of energy usage.
- relaxing 2y ago
  How did we go from energy consumed to human time? The caloric needs of a human are minuscule compared to the electricity converted to waste heat to train and operate an LLM.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    > How did we go from energy consumed to human time? Directly. Energy is consumed by humans over time. That time may be spent on doing tasks. Spending that time doing task increases energy consumption over baseline (though humans have substantial energy storage, so, for tasks shorter than couple hours, the cost is usually paid after such tasks). > The caloric needs of a human are minuscule compared to the electricity converted to waste heat to train and operate an LLM. The costs of operating: not really, and that's the whole point of comparison. Sure, humans are energy-efficient in some aspects - but the brains can only do so much. There's plenty of work that LLMs do faster and better than humans, so much better that no human can match them. And speed means more tasks, so energy use per task is lower. Also, if you're talking about cost of operating LLMs in general - i.e. keeping them running and doing arbitrary work, you really need to compare it against costs of keeping a human alive and available to do the work. So it's not just food, but also hygiene - including e.g. delivering water, heating water for laundry and showers, etc. - and similar consumables. As for training costs, that must be a joke. Do you know how much it costs to train a human? Energy or otherwise? As a parent of three kids I'll tell you: a lot. If you include the energy a human uses from birth to ~18, and then energy used while they're trained for whatever jobs you want to compare against AI, then the comparison gets even worse for humans.
    - relaxing 2y ago
      The humans already exist. We’re neither creating nor destroying them for the purpose of doing an LLM equivalent task, nor am I bathing or clothing myself to think up an answer to something, and evaluating the problem as though we are is a sick joke. This is the most unserious argument in favor of AI I’ve seen to date.
      - godot 2y ago
        The scenario is a task needs to be done. Whether it's for business, personal, whatever. It's a task. It needs to be done somehow. It can be done by a human, or by AI. We are calculating the cost of doing this task. I don't know how else we can be more clear. Honestly I'm very unconvinced by this article author's sense of need to calculate the energy cost of the LLM as an argument against it. But if we're using it as an argument, it's only fair to compare how else the task can be completed (i.e. by the human) and what it would cost. What is there to not understand about this comparison?

dmbche 2y ago

The human being is there anyway and will eat/drink wether you ask them a question or not. I'd argue the 3 bottles of water are strickly negative compared to a human doing the same.

godot 2y ago
You would use those couple of hours to work on something else that isn't answering that specific questions, so IMO it is a valid comparison.

logtempo 2y ago

but you can't delete people? That's actually the big problem that need to be addressed imo. It happen now (or later) with llm, but in the past it have been a problem with industrialization (big unemployment of workers) and then globalization (unemployment of more local workers). If it's not addreased correctly, llm won't be a progress for humanity. But if you want to compare it "technically", maybe it's better to look at computer usage now vs with llm maybe (how many google request, sim failed, screen on etc.)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

sensanaty 2y ago

Lol are we already at the level of psychopathy to be considering not giving humans water because they're less efficient than an LLM?

godot 2y ago
That is exactly what I am trying to point out; that considering the energy usage of LLM is a level of psychopathy, because that LLM is doing productive work that a human otherwise would.