Yes, but by definition all of them are also playing the game, and given that this is mostly a novelty feature (and also based on how shockingly little use the user-facing chatbots I’ve seen in professional settings are utilized), I personally doubt that the chatbot energy usage will top the game’s.
Comment on Epic’s AI Darth Vader tech is about to be all over Fortnite
Vodulas@beehaw.org 2 days agoOther than the obvious missing numbers, this is also missing scale. Sure, one response likely takes less energy than playing the game, but Fortnite averaged 1.4 million daily players the last year. Granted not all of them are going to interact with the bot, but a whole hell of a lot are going to, and do it multiple times in a row.
t3rmit3@beehaw.org 2 days ago
Vodulas@beehaw.org 2 days ago
For sure that is true for Vader, bit the point of the article is to roll out several new bots to keep the novelty up
MagicShel@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
And they used 1.4 million video cards. The scale is a wash. And yes, when it’s brand new folks are going to sit there for a bit appreciating how cool it is to talk to Darth Vader. And then he’s going to say some stupid out-of-character stuff, and the novelty is going to wear off, and the AI usage is going to go down, but the video card usage will stay the same.
Vodulas@beehaw.org 2 days ago
Sure, that is true specifically for Vader, but the whole point of the article is that they are rolling out several new bots to keep the novelty up.
MagicShel@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
Okay. So, your position is that 6 year olds are going to join Fortnite to spam the funny-man-speak button and because of that AI energy usage will be higher? Okay. Maybe. I’d argue the novelty of AI wears thin really quickly once you interact with it a lot, but I’ll grant you some folks might remain excited by AI beyond reason.
So now they are logging into Fortnite and rather than playing the actual game they are just going to talk to characters? It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. But once we throw out the other commenter’s numbers and suppose it’s not 7 generations to equal 30 minutes of play, maybe it’s 20. Maybe it’s 40. Maybe it’s 100. I honestly don’t know. But we’re definitely in the realm where I think betting the video card uses more energy than the AI for a given player (and all video cards use more energy than AI for all given players) is a perfectly reasonable position to take.
I bet that is the case. I don’t know it. I can’t prove it right or wrong without actual numbers. But based on my ability to generate images and text locally on a shit video card, I am sticking with my bet.
Vodulas@beehaw.org 2 days ago
No, my point is one player on a single video card is going to interact with the bots multiple times to try and get it to say something funny (or racist as real life played out). That takes more than a single interaction