Comment on Epic’s AI Darth Vader tech is about to be all over Fortnite
Vodulas@beehaw.org 3 days agoSure, 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
MagicShel@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
You start by saying no, but your elaboration says yes.
Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t think so. shrug
Not sure what else there is to say at this point. AI uses energy. So do lots of things—video cards in this example. My point is really to put things into perspective here. If the number of video cards running Fortnite weren’t cause for worry 3 years ago, why would this use of AI be concerning today?
Vodulas@beehaw.org 2 days ago
Sorry, I said “no” because it is clearly not just 6 year olds playing fortnite and interacting with the bots, but did not elaborate at all. Brain fart on my part
Because it has the potential to be way worse, but it depends heavily on actual energy usage, which we don’t have in this case. What we do have is estimates on ChatGPT, and the estimates are pretty bad
web.archive.org/…/energy-ai-use-electricity-water…
We can only speculate, but if 100 words of text takes .14kWh we can assume 100 words of voice production is worse.
And maybe if the novelty does not stick it is not something to be concerned about, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be asking about the energy cost