Submitted 1 month ago by callouscomic@lemmy.zip to memes@sopuli.xyz
https://lemmy.zip/pictrs/image/69f4e804-e810-4e6b-800a-f9fc8aba0f6f.webp
I spared by another post.
Quick sources.
According to Google, a single search requires about 0.0003 kWh of energy.
https://www.rwdigital.ca/blog/how-much-energy-do-google-search-and-chatgpt-use/
Each ChatGPT query consumes an estimated 2.9 Wh of electricity…
For context, 0.0003 Wh are 0.3 Wh, i.e. ten times less than a ChatGPT query.
0.0003 Wh are 0.3 Wh
A- for trying
LOL dammit, fixed
While we’re at it: Ten times less shouldn’t be a thing.
Ten percent, 0.1 times, a tenth …
wait, you never walk up downstairs?
Did you ask ChatGPT to do your math too?
Terrible choice of units hides the fact that 0.3 and 3 are not that far apart.
A full order of magnitude is “not that far”?
A lot closer than 4 orders.
When you’re talking about a difference of 9 Google Searches, or an LED bulb running for 15 minutes, or running an AC unit for about a second, yes its not much.
I simply copied from the sources, not thinking at all. I’ve added context to the edit per everyone’s remarks. It’s about a tenth.
But you raise an interesting question.
A quick search suggests ChatGPT gets 2.5 billion prompts a day. I wouldn’t presume this is a one-to-one scale. How many Google searches result in more searches as the person is trying to refine to figure out what they’re looking for or not finding it? Additionally, how prompts into ChatGPT have further prompts for refinement?
I could see a case when ChatGPT gives quick results that take one prompt whereas someone unsuccessfully googling might make 10 searches.
Does it net out? Who knows. There’s also innumerable other factors at play. What we CAN know is that energy use has skyrocketed recently, whereas Googles been around for decades.
True. Was about to come say that too…
It literally shows AI-powered searches as more efficient LOL.
I look up recipes a lot, would love to know the actual cost of visiting a site, given all of the JavaScript and cookies, tracking, images etc that has to be loaded, that I don’t really care about
I use it to help figure out the order to cook things like stir frys with whatever ingredients I happen to have, which is an improvement over my previous “just throw it all in and stop when I feel like it’s time to eat then wonder why the meat is so tough”.
It also helped me figure out that I’ve been steaming food instead of frying it for a long time. Though my cooking got a lot messier when I corrected that and I went from never burning anything to occasionally burning some things.
now calculate how much power this meme took to make. or how much power all the page views take.
the easiest reference for this stuff is how much more efficient a thing is compared to an old-fashioned lightbulb. The standard lightbulb is 50W, which means leaving it on for an hour consumes 50Wh. so with that amount of energy, you could do 15 chatgpt prompts. or 150 regular searches. or run your vacuum cleaner for two minutes. or rev your car for 1.8 seconds, assuming your engine is around 130bhp.
One of the sources I linked literally gave you your lightbulb answer, but you didn’t check. You just went straight to some kind of mansplaining.
it’s called “rambling”.
also, it’s about perspective.
I feel like ⅒ is a gross overestimation and regular search engines should consume at least 100 times less than GPTs.
Ah, well, good thing your feeling is more important than any potential source of actual data.
Ah, well, good thing your feeling is more important than any potential source of actual data.
That’s not at all what it says; sarcasm is uncalled for.
Next time try making the meme without a pedophile.
Got it. I won’t make a meme with you next time.
Are they not the same number?
Is the benefit provided by ChatGPT worth 3 million electric cars? Can we maybe scrap something else, like 1% of fast fashion, to equal out the capacity?
No to the first part, but we should still do the second part.
no, because line needs to go up
Seriously though, I agree with you. It’s just so wasteful. It’s really disheartening to try and do my eco friendly bit to reduce waste (particularly of power) and then data centres just piss away the ground we’ve collectively made.
You don’t take into account that Google made its search worse on purpose and now you have to make two or more queries to find what you need.
And chances are that option 2 gives you misinformation, and of course doesn’t cite sources.
The error with the measuring units is so grotesque it looks like bad faith to ride the AI bad wave but who knows
ChatGPT, how do you make a meme wothout chaGPT?
I am sorry for being late, but I would love to say that the no 0.3Wh vs yes nuclear plant would be just perfect.
Would be great if the AI bubble caused investments in the electric grid and renewable energy and then popped.
anyone wanna correct it then ? I currently don’t have computer for this, maybe there is android foss meme maker app though ?
New free DLC options added!
I am pretty sure you don’t need an app
turbowafflz@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It bothers me so much that the two numbers are in different units
Skua@kbin.earth 1 month ago
0.0003 of anything should not be measured in kilo-units
BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
While I do agree with you, kWh is what’s on my electric bill. Meaning it’s easier to relate to.
I guess it should have been expressed in base unit without SI-prefix. Because writing 0.3x10^-3 kWh just seem silly.
callouscomic@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Hmm, great point. I simply copied the figures from the sources. I dunno why I didn’t consider converting one of them.
BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
I thought the joke was about people not being able to convert. It took a couple of clock cycles on the old meat CPU to figure out that it was an anti AI meme.
DarkCloud@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Aren’t they both in Watt Hours?
bus_factor@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yes, but it’s obviously done that way to make the numbers look more different at first glance
NochMehrG@feddit.org 1 month ago
Samesies