Live data from Hacker News

Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

andymasley.substack.com

21–30 of 337 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#21

This is a great article for discussion. However articles like this must link to references. It is one thing to assert, another to prove. I do agree that heating/cooling, car and transport use, and diet play massive roles in climate change that should not be subsumed by other debates. The flip side to the authors argument is that LLMs are not only used by home users doing 20 searches a day. Governments and Mega-Corpor…

[deleted]

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#22
post #16
post #10

what does "water used by data center" even mean? Does it consume the water somehow? What does it turn into? Steam? So uploading a 1GB file boils away nearly 1 liter of water? Or is it turned into bits somehow in some kind of mass to energy conversion? I sorta doubt that. Also this means data centers would have cooling towers like some power stations. Are we talking about the cooling towers of power stations? I think…

Yes, datacenters have cooling towers. There are lots of good articles about this topic. A good starting point is "water usage effectiveness" (WUE) which is one way this is tracked.

The one near here just has heat exchanges. But even if all the others use evaporators then potential water usage is extremely misleading because its not like the water is consumed - its just temporarily unavailable.

Also why doesn't uploading a 1GB file to my NAS boil a liter of water? are maybe all the switches and routers used between me and the datacenter water-cooled? I mean I can see such switches existing but I don't see them be the norm. Why doesn't the DSLAM on the Street outside emit steam. Is there maybe one bad switch somewhere that just spews steam?

What I am saying is that at least that graph is without further explanation... bad.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#23
post #11

Such a stupid post, I know people on HN don’t like absolute descriptors like that and sorry for that. Obviously the LLMs and ChatGPT don’t use the most energy when answering your question, they churn through insane amounts of water and energy when training them, so much so that big tech companies do not disclose and try to obscure those amounts as much as possible. You aren’t destroying the environment by using it RI…

[flagged]

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#24
post #13

If you use chatgpt somehow saves you from making one trip to the doctor in your car it can offset the entire year worth of chatgpt usage in terms of co2 impact.

if your use of chatgpt saves you from a trip to the doctor I would be very concerned

Most doctor visits are for benign matters...

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#25
post #3

The title does not match the content. A more appropriate title is "Emissions caused by chatgpt use are not significant in comparison to everything else." But, given that title, it becomes somewhat obvious that the article itself doesn't need to exist.

> given that title, it becomes somewhat obvious that the article itself doesn't need to exist.

Why? I regularly hear people trying to argue that LLMs are an environmental distaster.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#26
post #3

The title does not match the content. A more appropriate title is "Emissions caused by chatgpt use are not significant in comparison to everything else." But, given that title, it becomes somewhat obvious that the article itself doesn't need to exist.

The article needs to exist because the idea that ChatGPT usage is environmentally disastrous really has started to make its way into the human hive mind.

I'm glad someone is trying to push back against that - I see it every day.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#27

This is a great article for discussion. However articles like this must link to references. It is one thing to assert, another to prove. I do agree that heating/cooling, car and transport use, and diet play massive roles in climate change that should not be subsumed by other debates. The flip side to the authors argument is that LLMs are not only used by home users doing 20 searches a day. Governments and Mega-Corpor…

> Governments and Mega-Corporations are chewing through GPU hours on god-knows-what.

The "I don't know so it must be huge" argument?

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#28

This is a great article for discussion. However articles like this must link to references. It is one thing to assert, another to prove. I do agree that heating/cooling, car and transport use, and diet play massive roles in climate change that should not be subsumed by other debates. The flip side to the authors argument is that LLMs are not only used by home users doing 20 searches a day. Governments and Mega-Corpor…

The question this is addressing concerns personal use. Is it ethical to use ChatGPT on a personal basis? A surprising number of people will say that it isn't because of the energy and water usage of those prompts.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#29

This is a great article for discussion. However articles like this must link to references. It is one thing to assert, another to prove. I do agree that heating/cooling, car and transport use, and diet play massive roles in climate change that should not be subsumed by other debates. The flip side to the authors argument is that LLMs are not only used by home users doing 20 searches a day. Governments and Mega-Corpor…

> However articles like this must link to references.

There are links to sources for every piece of data in the article.

Re: Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

#30
post #24
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if your use of chatgpt saves you from a trip to the doctor I would be very concerned

Most doctor visits are for benign matters...

The point of the doctorate is for them to make that determination.
Post reply on HN