this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2025
405 points (95.1% liked)

Technology

74073 readers
2679 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
405
ChatGPT 5 power consumption could be as much as eight times higher than GPT 4 — research institute estimates medium-sized GPT-5 response can consume up to 40 watt-hours of electricity (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 15 hours ago by homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
97 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The University of Rhode Island's AI lab estimates that GPT-5 averages just over 18 Wh per query, so putting all of ChatGPT's reported 2.5 billion requests a day through the model could see energy usage as high as 45 GWh.

A daily energy use of 45 GWh is enormous. A typical modern nuclear power plant produces between 1 and 1.6 GW of electricity per reactor per hour, so data centers running OpenAI's GPT-5 at 18 Wh per query could require the power equivalent of two to three nuclear power reactors, an amount that could be enough to power a small country.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 10 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Of course there are comments doubting the accuracy, which by itself is valid, but they are merely doing it to defend AI. IMHO, even at a fifth of the estimates, we’re talking humongous amounts of power, all for a so-so search engine, half arsed chatbots and dubious nsfw images mostly. And let’s not forget: it may be inaccurate and estimates are TOO LOW. Now wouldn’t that be fun?

[–] simple@piefed.social 6 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

but they are merely doing it to defend AI.

No they're not, you can agree the research is garbage without defending AI. It literally assumes everything. GPT5 could be using eight times the power. It could be using half the power. It could be using a quadrillion times the power. Nobody knows, because they keep it secret.

[–] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 1 points 2 hours ago

Sorry, i meant the comments under the article on toms hardware. I see this on a every tech site: research says it’s impossible amount of power used, and everyone in the comments below will do half arsed calculations with other made up numbers, trying to disprove the researcher, and always only to defend and legitimise their use of ai.
FWIW I’m not saying that the research here is garbage; it’s a decent attempt estimating by at assuming what you don’t and cannot really know, as long as an OpenAI and their doesn’t publish the data. As far as I know only Mistral published anything at all.

[–] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

It’s highly unlikely they reduced power usage—one of the most consistent criticisms of LLM and image generation—without advertising it.

[–] simple@piefed.social 4 points 12 hours ago

It's highly unlikely they would bring more attention to one of the biggest issues AI is causing even if they did make it slightly better