Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think anyone that does get convinced and skip meat should be able to use LLMs without shame or guilt, while we continue to pressure everyone else to save resources and we continue to pressure LLM companies to save resources. LLM companies only get let off the hook if a very large fraction of their users do the meat skip thing, which is not very likely but could theoretically happen. LLMs being a new category of ene…
It was a yes or no question Like not an if or maybe thing, what do you see when you picture the future? Do you think “Skip meat for a day use LLMs for a year” will produce enough new vegans to offset the energy usage and co2 produced by the LLM architecture of your choice? Not asking if you want it to happen or if it’s something you can imagine could happen, I’m asking if you think it will [_] yes [_] no Because if n…
[x] no
> Because if no, then the idea is just advocating for increased real consumption by invoking imaginary vegans!
Wrong.
> The person I was initially talking to took the position that LLM companies have negligible impact because people can be vegan.
He said "LLMs are not the problem here", which is true.
And he was arguing for individual use being offset when he said "maybe use ChatGPT to ask for vegan recipes".
The top level comment was also about individual use. "I would really like it if an LLM tool would show me the power consumption and environmental impact of each request I’ve submitted."
The comments right before you replied were also about individual use. "lifestyle choice".
> J-bp was saying that LLM companies shouldn’t be on anybody’s radars because uh, meat is 100,000 times worse.
The 100,000 number was a throwaway hypothetical to make a point. Not a number he was applying to LLMs in particular. Two lines later he threw in a 2,000x too.
And what he said is that LLM companies are not "somewhat equally important". Which is true. He didn't say you should ignore them entirely, just to have a sense of proportion.
-
Edit: Here is an important distinction that I think isn't getting through. There are multiple separate points being made by j-bp:
Point A, about not eating meat for a day, is only excusing anyone that actually does it. It's not a hypothetical that excuses the entire company.
Point B, about the size of the impact, suggests caring less about LLMs based on raw resource use. Point B does not care about the relatively small group of people that take up the offer in Point A. Point B is just looking at the big picture.