Elektrine lite

← Feed

@simon@fedi.simonwillison.net

Post #2420304

2025-04-29 15:35 UTC

I'm glad somebody out there is brave enough to push back against the "personal ChatGPT usage is terrible for the environment" message https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversations-about "If you want to prompt ChatGPT 40 times, you can just stop your shower 1 second early." "If I choose not to take a flight to Europe, I save 3,500,000 ChatGPT searches. this is like stopping more than 7 people from searching ChatGPT for their entire lives."

Replies (13)

  • @webology@mastodon.social 2025-04-29 15:39

    @simon@fedi.simonwillison.net I saw a similar analysis and I walked away realizing how much my nightly background YouTube and Netflix have a much, much greater environmental impact than I realized. I'm not quitting them though either.

    Open ##2868556

  • @nickalt@mastodon.social 2025-04-29 15:44

    @simon@fedi.simonwillison.net It's almost hard to believe "green" distractions like this aren't intended to prevent more effective actions (e.g. spending less money). Also worth noting that Google Gemini is probably 80% more efficient: https://venturebeat.com/ai/the-new-ai-calculus-googles-80-cost-edge-vs-openais-ecosystem/

    Open ##2868567

  • @Ulli@mstdn.social 2025-04-29 16:03

    @simon@fedi.simonwillison.net You miss one important thing, your shower has a purpose and gives you a valuable result…

    Open ##2868568

  • @djoerd@idf.social 2025-04-29 16:08

    @simon@fedi.simonwillison.net Instead of prompting ChatGPT 40 times, you may also do 4000 web searches with a standard web search engine (say, Google early 2000s,). It's a matter of perspecttives and (false) equivalences. (edited, because I exaggerated orders of magnitude)

    Open ##2868587

  • @larsmb@mastodon.online 2025-04-29 16:17

    @simon@fedi.simonwillison.net I admit I had to adjust a few assumptions in my head. Useful.

    Open ##2868591

  • @the_moep@mastodon.de 2025-04-29 16:25

    @simon@fedi.simonwillison.net Using it promotes AI as a viable business model as a whole as well as (in the case of non-local models) provides usage data and training content (and money if you pay) for the companies to do further bad AI business with. So of course, while the direct impact of one query on the environment doesn't really matter, the economical impact of you using it does indeed have an influence on the environment! The goal has to be to make AI and its connected surveillance capitalism a non-viable business model, and refraining to use it and shunning everyone who does is a way to do that!

    Open ##2868592

  • @77nn@goto.77nn.it 2025-04-29 16:26

    @simon@fedi.simonwillison.net actually it's not that this is good news. It's the aggregate value that is impressive. As it is 1 second of shower, when you multiply it by 7 billions. However i do recognize that there are considerations to be made. One of those is that roughly 1/7 of population today probably did not have even the chance for a shower. So, abruptly, a 1-second shower takes a whole new dimension, and 10 ChatGPT queries for each of the other 6 billions people mean a full 1 minute shower for the remaining 1. Probably this could prevent a few millions deaths by infection each year. There are dozens of ways each one of us wastes resources that mean life or death to others, and I think no one with this awareness is happy when wasting. Simply we didn't need ChatGPT to be another one, as we didn't need any crypto or any metaverse. Defending it and setting the stage for confrontation is, in the best frame I can think of, love for numbers and I can accept it. But however little, to me is however too much.

    Open ##2868600

  • @Xzan@androiddev.social 2025-04-29 16:26

    @simon@fedi.simonwillison.net I'm wondering, do those numbers take into account the training power usage and all the failing attempts to produce a viable model? Genuinely asking

    Open ##2868602

  • @einonm@mastodon.social 2025-04-29 16:31

    @simon@fedi.simonwillison.net this doesn't take I to account the model training hardware cost? Much like counting the petrol used, but not the environmental cost of making the car, so a bit flawed.

    Open ##2868604

  • @simon@fedi.simonwillison.net counterpoint: LLMs fucking sucks and we should convince people not to use it by any means necessary

    Open ##2868613

  • @platlas@en.osm.town 2025-04-29 16:47

    @simon@fedi.simonwillison.net "If I choose not to take a flight to Europe, I save 3,500,000 ChatGPT searches" Similar arguments were made for Bitcoin - distracting with other emissions. Even if you are saying that it is small compared to some other emissions, those emissions are still there. This is just another source that adds to the problem.

    Open ##2868617

  • @charlag@birb.site 2025-04-29 17:04

    @simon@fedi.simonwillison.net tiu are saying stopping just 7 people is like avoiding a transatlantic flight? doesn't sound so bad

    Open ##2868620

  • @mnd999@mastodon.social 2025-04-29 17:50

    @simon@fedi.simonwillison.net other things being worse does not make a thing not bad. It’s still 10x worse than a google search. If a google search will suffice, you should do that.

    Open ##2868621