andymasley

5 ms·

31.
by andymasley 2y ago
The training cost adds a minuscule amount to the marginal cost of each search. The best sources I can find on training GPT-4 say it used 50 GWh of energy to train. GPT-4 is being used for a lot more than ChatGPT, but even if we assume that
32.
by andymasley 2y ago
I'm the author, the 200 flights number is taken from posts made by environmentalists and seem to match public numbers given (about 50 GWh) https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2024/05/23/ai-i
33.
by andymasley 2y ago
I made a point in the post to say that it's better to mostly ignore your personal carbon footprint and focus on systematic change, but that I was writing the post for people who still wanted to reduce their consumption anyway
34.
by andymasley 2y ago
10 gallons of fuel's worth of energy could be used to ask ChatGTP 100,000 questions (assuming 3 Wh per question) or power a digital clock (1-2 W) for 35 years. If you assume you ask ChatGPT 8 questions per day, it's using exactly
35.
by andymasley 2y ago
Yup I decided to go with the worst estimates given by environmentalist critics of ChatGPT to try to show that even there it doesn't seem like a problem.
36.
by andymasley 2y ago
I basically do think that at some threshold it's important to weigh your time against negative impacts. I personally avoid taking flights whenever I can because of the climate and think that's worth my time relative to the emissio
37.
by andymasley 2y ago
Hey all I wrote this post. To clear up a few points: I meant this post to tell individuals that worrying about the emissions they personally cause using ChatGPT is silly, not that AI more broadly isn't using a lot of energy. I can&#x27