Re:A cheat sheet for why using ChatGPT is not bad for the en...
by Retric on Tuesday April 29, 2025 @05:29PM
(#43838238)
The methodology is inherently flawed by assuming all infrastructure, training, etc is going to exist with or without individual queries, while trying to answer a different question of the impact of AI on the environment. It’s like arguing the environmental impact of solar electricity is 0 because the panels would exist either way.
Thus the results inherently fail to analyze the underlying question.
A more realistic estimate is to take their total spending assuming X% of their expenses are electricity directly or indirectly because the environmental impact isn’t adds up. Even that ignores the energy costs on 3rd party servers when they download their training data.
Re:A cheat sheet for why using ChatGPT is not bad for the en...
by hugmynutus on Tuesday April 29, 2025 @05:43PM
(#43838374)
You are correct to point out the larger questions of supply chain cost (and their environmental impact) are not addressed in the root link.
Re:A cheat sheet for why using ChatGPT is not bad for the en...
by cwillu on Tuesday April 29, 2025 @05:13PM
(#43838109)
The unit is watt·hour, not watt/hour: multiplication, not division.
Re:A cheat sheet for why using ChatGPT is not bad for the en...
by hugmynutus on Tuesday April 29, 2025 @05:26PM
(#43838216)
Thanks!
The original link [1] cites a discussion of the cost per query of GPT-4o at 0.3whr [2]. When you read the document [2] itself you see 0.3whr is a lower bound & 40whr is the upper bound. The paper [2] is actually pretty solid, I recommend it. It uses the public metrics from other LLM APIs to derive a likely distribution of the context size of the average query for GPT-4o which is a reasonable approach given that data isn't public. Then factoring in GPU power per FLOP, average utilization during, and cloud/renting overhead. It admits this likely has non-trivial error bars, concluding the average is between 1-4whr per query.
This is disappointing to me as the original link [1] attempts to bring in this source [2] to disprove the 3whr "myth" created by another paper [3], yet this 3whr figure lies directly in the error bars their new source [2] arrives at.
Links:
1. https://simonwillison.net/2025/Apr/29/chatgpt-is-not-bad-for...
2. https://epoch.ai/gradient-updates/how-much-energy-does-chatg...
3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243512...
Edit: whr not w/hr