4 ms·
"These estimates should be interpreted with caution. In the case of Grok, they rely heavily on inferred inputs drawn from public reporting" That chart doesn't
by xnx 7mo ago
"These estimates should be interpreted with caution. In the case of Grok, they rely heavily on inferred inputs drawn from public reporting"
That chart doesn't really pass the sniff test.
- jazzypants 7mo agoI don't know if I would want to do too much sniffing around the Methane power they are using over at xAI. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/03/elon-musk-xai-pollution-memphis https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/03/elon-musk-xa...
- xnx 7mo agoThat's definitely a very visible use of carbon generating fuel, but I'd choose methane over coal power plants all day.
- jazzypants 7mo agoI agree 100% if those are the only two options. I guess my point is that it's fair to assume that Elon's crew is doing the bare minimum in terms of efficiency and pollutant mitigation-- at least when compared to other data centers who do legally compliant business with real power companies.
- HelloMcFly 7mo agoThe rest of the quote you began continues: "On the other hand, Perrault noted that 'Epoch AI independently estimates Grok 4’s emissions to be significantly higher at approximately 140,000 tons of CO₂.'" I realize these are still estimates, but when the other independent analysis nearly doubles the outcome I'm not left feeling optimistic. One could argue some numbers from others are underestimates... which of course just bums me out all the more!