106
OpenAI will not disclose GPT-5’s energy use. It could be higher than past models
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
106 points (97.3% liked)
Technology
74073 readers
2818 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
All the people here chastising LLMs for resource wastage, I swear to god if you aren't vegan...
Whataboutism isn’t useful. Nobody is living the perfect life. Every improvement we can make towards a more sustainable way of living is good. Everyone needs to start somewhere and even if they never move to make more changes at least they made the one.
1 beef burger is equivalent in water consumption to 7.5million chatgpt queries.
I did a quick calculation and got to around 500 queries per quarter pounder. Lot of guesstimation and rounding though, but I’m pretty sure I got close enough to know that you’re off by quite a lot.
Edit to add: I used 21.9kg CO2 per 1kg of beef and 4.32 grams per ChatGPT query for my rough estimate.
However that 4.32 number is already over a year old. Chances are it’s way outdated but everyone still keeps on quoting it. It definitely does not take into account that ChatGPT often “thinks” now, because chain of thought is likely as expensive as multiple queries by itself. Additionally the models are more advanced than a year ago, but also more costly and that CO2 amount everyone keeps quoting doesn’t even mention which model they used. If anyone can find the original source of this number I’d be very curious.
The CO2 calculation is also useful and interesting, but they did say "water consumption"
Do you have a citation handy for that?
Dude, wtf?! You can't just go around pointing out peoples hypocrisy. Companies killing the planet is big bad.
People joining in? Dude just let us live!! It is only animals...
big /s
Animal agriculture has significantly better utility and scaling than LLMs. So, its not hypocritical to be opposed to the latter but not the former.
The holocaust was well scaled too. Animal ag is responsible for 15-20% of the entire planets GHG emissions. You can live a healthier, more morally consistent life if you give up meat.
Do you know what I mean by "scaling"? Because going by your reply, you don't.
I mean, they're both bad.
But also, "Throw that burger in the trash I'm not eating it" and "Uninstall that plugin, I'm not querying it" have about the same impact on your gross carbon emissions.
These are supply side problems in industries that receive enormous state subsides. Hell, the single biggest improvement to our agriculture policy was when China stopped importing US pork products. So, uh... once again, thank you China for saving the planet.
Wait so the biggest improvement came when there was a massive decline in demand?
The Demand didn't decline. The state imposed a strict high barrier to trade that prevented it from being fulfilled.
So you did not export that much to China or was there a big "eat more pork" campaign because else where did the demand come from afterwards?
What a stupid take.
What is it with vegans and comparing literally everything to veganism? I was in another thread and it was compared to genocide, rape, and climate change all in the same thread. Insanity
probably because the animal death industry is comparable to those things
Death Industry sounds like it would be an awesome band name.
true lol
It's not, you're just personally insulted. The livestock industry is responsible for about 15% of human caused greenhouse gas emissions. That's not negligible.
I swear to God this attitude is why people don't like what you're saying. I am all for weighing the two against each other but the "I am more moral than thou" is why I left the church.
So, I can't complain about any part of the remaining 85% if I'm not vegan? That's so fucking stupid. Do you not complain about microplastics because you're guilty of using devices with plastic in them to type your message?
Yes, I'm a piece of shit for using a phone made by a capitalist corporation and contributes to harming the planet. I don't deny that I live in a horrible society that forces me to be a bad human just to survive.
I also don't call people stupid for telling me my device is bad for the environment. I still eat meat, I'm not a vegan, but I understand and completely agree that it's terrible for the environment. By recognizing it, I can be conscious of my consumption and reduce it.
I also use LLMs conservatively, I use them where they add value and I don't use them frivolously to generate shitty AI slop.
I'm conscious of its dangers and that drives my consumption of it.
But I don't pick and choose. I don't eat animal products three meals a day and bitch about someone using an LLM to edit a file instead of manually working on it for five hours.
Just be consistent is the message they were communicating, not that you shouldn't complain about 85%.
Same, I'm very aware that my selfish actions cause harm to the environment and I do try to be conservative about meat, electricity, and water usage. I don't even own a car.
But "I swear to God, if you aren't vegan," which is what OP said, is hardly the same as "keep it consistent." It feels like they're telling us both that our efforts are pointless because we aren't vegan. They could have said, try cutting meat from your diet to help more, or give veganism a thought. It comes off as insufferably arrogant, you know?
I'll end my rant now, haha. Sorry.
They were trying to be funny, don't be too literal.
I think (that's how I interrupted it, I don't know) the intent was to reflect the insufferably arrogant tone of most people who exclusively complain about AI as if it has no benefits and will be the sole destroyer of our society.
Imagining complaining about someone tipping out fresh water, while eating a burger when a single kilo of beef uses between 15,000 to 200,000 liters.
Like, until you stop doing the worst thing a single consumer can do to the planet for literally nothing but greed and pleasure (eating meat instead of healthier alternatives), you have no leg to criticize.