you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

you made an offhand joke and got mad at him for continuing the joke?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Stop burning the planet down to generate social media comments

    I mean, I thought it would be obvious my issue was with using AI to do so...

    Even if it had been a serious question.

    But, to be fair I was thinking of what a normal.person would be able to parse, and not people who's critical thinking had already atrophied from offloading to AI.

    They probably don't have any idea what I meant and would need it explicitly spelled out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I didn't realize it even was ai generated. but even if it is, that's still a fairly off-putting way to respond.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    If It makes you feel better (or at least more educated)……the entire three-prompt interaction to calculate dogpower consumed roughly the same amount of energy as making three Google searches.

    A single Google search uses about 0.3 watt-hours (Wh) of energy. A typical AI chat query with a modern model uses a similar amount, roughly 0.2 to 0.34 Wh. Therefore, my dogpower curiosity discussion used approximately 0.9 Wh in total.

    For context, this is less energy than an LED lightbulb consumes in a few minutes. While older AI models were significantly more energy-intensive (sometimes using 10 times more power than a search) the latest versions have become nearly as efficient for common tasks.

    For even more context, It would take approximately 9 Lemmy comments to equal the energy consumed by my 3-prompt dogpower calculation discussion.

  • source
  • parent