• Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’m all for having companies pay for their electricity use and their impact on the grid but that has nothing to do with AI.

    Llama took 2 600 mWh to train over 6 months and can run on much less than what’s needed for gaming. ActivisionBlizzard used 86 000 mWh of energy in 2022 for both the datacenters for their games and the development of them. Yet no one in their right mind would suggest to curb stomp gaming to save on energy.

    Openai has bigger costs but they run inference, and having them run it actually makes it more efficient, even though I rather open source models you can run on your own machine.

    The clear solution is upgrading to a more robust green energy grid, not blocking innovation.

    And if we are going to ban things because of their energy use, there are much better candidates than software. A transatlantic flight takes up 500 mWh, so essentially 1000 people flying to Europe and back use up as much energy as the llama model took to train, a model that has been downloaded 3.5 million times in the past month alone on hugging face (only with the official 8b included, and not counting the other sizes or the thousands of finetunes).

    • auzas_1337@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Have you got something to read up on regarding comparisons of energy consumption? Sounds really interesting, but I know close to jack shit about this.

    • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      That’s completely besides the point.

      Blizzard isn’t asking taxpayers to subsidize them billions “to advance humanity”.

      As you say yourself, there are way better models than what is being funded right now, and what is likely to get the monopoly on energy, at our expense.