Topic: Idea to end global warming
A blackity black man started this discussion 2 months ago #130,599
Idea: Zeiss is a German company that manufactures some of the world’s most precise lenses. Zeiss sells these lenses to ASML which uses these lenses in their EUV machines which is used by foundries like TSMC and Samsung to make chips. So what if hypothetically Zeiss stopped making lenses? Could we go back to caveman days? Would this solve climate change?
https://www.zeiss.com/semiconductor-manufacturing-technology/smt-magazine/high-na-euv-lithography.html
https://www.zeiss.com/semiconductor-manufacturing-technology/smt-magazine/high-na-euv-lithography.html
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 1 hour later[^] [v] #1,400,492
Fabs aren't the problem, and what they replaced emitted a lot mroe carbon.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,553
@previous (B)
> Fabs aren't the problem, and what they replaced emitted a lot mroe carbon.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/07/03/musks-xai-gets-permit-for-turbines-to-power-supercomputer-in-memphis.html
No, AI is pretty bad for the environment.
> Fabs aren't the problem, and what they replaced emitted a lot mroe carbon.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/07/03/musks-xai-gets-permit-for-turbines-to-power-supercomputer-in-memphis.html
No, AI is pretty bad for the environment.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,554
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,555
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,556
It really doesn’t make sense either because AI data centers haven’t resulted in people not existing. The existence of an AI data centers doesn’t mean humans need fewer resources it just means humans still need all the resources they needed before plus an AI data center.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 11 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,557
@1,400,555 (C)
You could run a model on your own computer that writes essays and it would use less resources than idling in an old game for a few minutes.
You could run a model on your own computer that writes essays and it would use less resources than idling in an old game for a few minutes.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 months ago, 56 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,558
@1,400,556 (C)
It means we don't need call centers, and people driving their vehicles out to them.
The commute for one person is a lot more wasteful than the AI bot that replaces them, even if they still exist.
It means we don't need call centers, and people driving their vehicles out to them.
The commute for one person is a lot more wasteful than the AI bot that replaces them, even if they still exist.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 23 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,559
@1,400,557 (B)
That still takes more energy than it would if you just wrote it yourself. Your brain uses less energy than a laptop.
That still takes more energy than it would if you just wrote it yourself. Your brain uses less energy than a laptop.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,560
@previous (C)
Leaving a lamp on for an hour to write uses more electricity than multiple LLM queries.
Leaving a lamp on for an hour to write uses more electricity than multiple LLM queries.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 6 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,561
A human brain uses 20 watts of power, a MacBook charger user 140 watts.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,562
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 months ago, 33 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,563
@1,400,561 (C)
Generating an essay uses significantly less electricity than leaving your Mac on to write for just 10 minutes.
Generating an essay uses significantly less electricity than leaving your Mac on to write for just 10 minutes.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 7 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,564
@1,400,562 (B)
Writing an essay yourself on a Mac still uses less power than writing an essay using an LLM.
Writing an essay yourself on a Mac still uses less power than writing an essay using an LLM.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 months ago, 39 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,565
@1,400,563 (B)
It’s not going to be an essay worth reading unless you edit it for more than ten minutes.
It’s not going to be an essay worth reading unless you edit it for more than ten minutes.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 11 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,566
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 months ago, 16 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,567
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,568
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,569
@previous (C)
You're changing the subject to avoid admitting you're wrong.
Using an LLM consumes significantly less resources intensive than the alternative.
You're changing the subject to avoid admitting you're wrong.
Using an LLM consumes significantly less resources intensive than the alternative.
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,570
@previous (B)
I’m not avoiding admitting I’m wrong, I’m not admitting I’m wrong because I’m not wrong. Neural networks are computationally inefficient and computers are less energy efficient than biological neurons. These are just true statements.
I’m not avoiding admitting I’m wrong, I’m not admitting I’m wrong because I’m not wrong. Neural networks are computationally inefficient and computers are less energy efficient than biological neurons. These are just true statements.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 52 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,571
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,572
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,573
@1,400,570 (C)
Are you having trouble following the conversation?
We were comparing the electricity use to write an essay, and leave the MacBook on longer because you were writing it yourself. You said yourself, that would require more than 10 minutes.
How efficient a human brain is doesn't change the fact that humans consume resources in other ways, like having an entire machine turned on and drawing power just to run a document editor.
Are you having trouble following the conversation?
We were comparing the electricity use to write an essay, and leave the MacBook on longer because you were writing it yourself. You said yourself, that would require more than 10 minutes.
How efficient a human brain is doesn't change the fact that humans consume resources in other ways, like having an entire machine turned on and drawing power just to run a document editor.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 months ago, 33 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,574
@1,400,572 (C)
I did.
The cost of using an LLM several times is going to be much, much less than leaving a MacBook on for more than 10 minutes.
I did.
The cost of using an LLM several times is going to be much, much less than leaving a MacBook on for more than 10 minutes.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 37 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,575
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 months ago, 45 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,576
Anonymous C triple-posted this 2 months ago, 18 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,577
It’s still more energy. You’re trying to argue something that’s just obviously not true.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,578
@1,400,575 (C)
You have a habit of saying it's bad, without actually pointing out errors.
@1,400,576 (C)
We can include leaving the MacBook on for 5 minutes in addition to the LLM usage, and say it took 20 minutes to write the essay yourself start to finish.
Does that seem like a fair comparison?
You have a habit of saying it's bad, without actually pointing out errors.
@1,400,576 (C)
We can include leaving the MacBook on for 5 minutes in addition to the LLM usage, and say it took 20 minutes to write the essay yourself start to finish.
Does that seem like a fair comparison?
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,580
@1,400,577 (C)
It's not hard to calculate, so let's do that instead of just saying it's the case.
It's not hard to calculate, so let's do that instead of just saying it's the case.
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 49 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,581
@1,400,578 (B)
I don’t understand why you’re not really understanding the point I’m making. Using your brain takes energy, using a laptop takes energy, using and LLM takes energy. There are 3 scenarios:
1. You write an essay yourself with a pencil and paper
2. You write an essay on a laptop yourself
3. You write an essay on a laptop using an LLM
In case 1, the energy used is your brain. In case 2, the energy used is your brain plus your laptop. In case 3, the energy used is your brain plus your laptop plus your LLM.
In what way does using the LLM reduce energy used? I don’t see it.
I don’t understand why you’re not really understanding the point I’m making. Using your brain takes energy, using a laptop takes energy, using and LLM takes energy. There are 3 scenarios:
1. You write an essay yourself with a pencil and paper
2. You write an essay on a laptop yourself
3. You write an essay on a laptop using an LLM
In case 1, the energy used is your brain. In case 2, the energy used is your brain plus your laptop. In case 3, the energy used is your brain plus your laptop plus your LLM.
In what way does using the LLM reduce energy used? I don’t see it.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 months ago, 59 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,582
Even if using an LLM takes less energy than using a laptop, if you have to have your laptop on to use the LLM, by using the LLM you’re always using more energy by using the LLM than you would be by not using it.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 16 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,583
@1,400,581 (C)
So you realized the MacBook being left on for 15 more minutes made it a landslide loss in efficiency for doing it yourself.
Would you like to compare leaving a light on to do the essay now?
So you realized the MacBook being left on for 15 more minutes made it a landslide loss in efficiency for doing it yourself.
Would you like to compare leaving a light on to do the essay now?
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 months ago, 43 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,584
@1,400,582 (C)
> Even if using an LLM takes less energy than using a laptop, if you have to have your laptop
lol, you went from "it's obvious" to realizing the truth quickly.
> on to use the LLM, by using the LLM you’re always using more energy by using the LLM than you would be by not using it.
No, because the LLM makes it faster so you actually need to machine on for less time.
> Even if using an LLM takes less energy than using a laptop, if you have to have your laptop
lol, you went from "it's obvious" to realizing the truth quickly.
> on to use the LLM, by using the LLM you’re always using more energy by using the LLM than you would be by not using it.
No, because the LLM makes it faster so you actually need to machine on for less time.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 45 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,585
@1,400,583 (B)
Do you not see how what I just said invalidates the entire point you’ve been trying to make this whole time that using an LLM to write an essay saves energy?
Do you not see how what I just said invalidates the entire point you’ve been trying to make this whole time that using an LLM to write an essay saves energy?
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 months ago, 51 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,586
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 18 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,587
@1,400,585 (C)
I already responded to that point, by saying that the machine would need to be on for less time.
I already responded to that point, by saying that the machine would need to be on for less time.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 22 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,588
I feel like I’m arguing with an idiot.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 42 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,589
@1,400,586 (C)
You said the LLM used more than not using it.
That's wrong, because when don't use the LLM you do something else. Leaving a lamp on to write would use more electricity.
You said the LLM used more than not using it.
That's wrong, because when don't use the LLM you do something else. Leaving a lamp on to write would use more electricity.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 months ago, 56 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,590
@1,400,588 (C)
So you don't actually want to calculate it, lol.
Backing out and calling names doesn't make you look like you won.
Let me know if you would like to actually compare! This isn't opinions, you can put a number on energy consumption.
So you don't actually want to calculate it, lol.
Backing out and calling names doesn't make you look like you won.
Let me know if you would like to actually compare! This isn't opinions, you can put a number on energy consumption.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 16 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,591
@1,400,589 (B)
No it’s correct, doing anything takes energy. It always takes more energy to do something than to not do something.
No it’s correct, doing anything takes energy. It always takes more energy to do something than to not do something.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 months ago, 48 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,592
You’re trying to argue that doing more computation on a computer takes less energy than doing less computation on a computer. That’s a stupid thing to argue.
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 33 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,593
@1,400,591 (C)
Yes, using a lamp would require more than not.
You want to look at half the equation, and ignore the other half.
Yes, using a lamp would require more than not.
You want to look at half the equation, and ignore the other half.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 41 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,594
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 30 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,595
@1,400,592 (C)
That's how it works practically.
A college student writing an essay is doing it on their laptop 99% of the time, and it takes longer to do it yourself.
If they used an LLM it would use less electricity if that meant they closed the lid 15 minutes quicker.
That's how it works practically.
A college student writing an essay is doing it on their laptop 99% of the time, and it takes longer to do it yourself.
If they used an LLM it would use less electricity if that meant they closed the lid 15 minutes quicker.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,596
@previous (B)
Except if you’re a college student and you do all your work on ChatGPT, when you graduate you won’t know how to do your job.
Except if you’re a college student and you do all your work on ChatGPT, when you graduate you won’t know how to do your job.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,597
@1,400,594 (C)
Everything consumes resources. Making and shipping school supplies, keeping your Mac on, or using a light to study and write at night.
LLMs don't consume much compared to what they replace, that's why it economical to automate with LLMs.
Human workers need gasoline money for the commute, a climate-controlled building to work in, supplies that are shipped in to help them work better, and they need the whole facility maintained.
When a call center is shut down, and people stop driving to and from there every day because they use bots on server that business consumes significantly less energy which is where the savings comes from.
Everything consumes resources. Making and shipping school supplies, keeping your Mac on, or using a light to study and write at night.
LLMs don't consume much compared to what they replace, that's why it economical to automate with LLMs.
Human workers need gasoline money for the commute, a climate-controlled building to work in, supplies that are shipped in to help them work better, and they need the whole facility maintained.
When a call center is shut down, and people stop driving to and from there every day because they use bots on server that business consumes significantly less energy which is where the savings comes from.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 months ago, 25 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,598
@1,400,596 (C)
That has nothing to do with what we were talking about: whether LLMs are electrically inefficient.
That has nothing to do with what we were talking about: whether LLMs are electrically inefficient.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,600
@previous (B)
Whenever I talk with you I always have the feeling that you don’t really know what you’re talking about, but you think your arguments are especially clever when they’re really not.
Whenever I talk with you I always have the feeling that you don’t really know what you’re talking about, but you think your arguments are especially clever when they’re really not.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 23 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,601
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 19 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,602
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 49 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,603
@1,400,600 (C)
You've already weasled out of your original claim and are now going for the technical claim something is more than nothing.
You've already weasled out of your original claim and are now going for the technical claim something is more than nothing.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 months ago, 42 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,605
@1,400,602 (C)
Pick your comparison and we can. Do you still insist that 5 minutes of a Mac being on + LLM is more than 20 minutes of it being on and no LLM?
Before you said it was obvious!
Pick your comparison and we can. Do you still insist that 5 minutes of a Mac being on + LLM is more than 20 minutes of it being on and no LLM?
Before you said it was obvious!
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 44 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,606
How many sources do you want?
https://news.mit.edu/2025/responding-to-generative-ai-climate-impact-0930
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/12/g-s1-9545/ai-brings-soaring-emissions-for-google-and-microsoft-a-major-contributor-to-climate-change
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/the-growing-environmental-impact-of-ai-data-centers-energy-demands
https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2024/08/15/carbon-emissions-from-ai-and-crypto-are-surging-and-tax-policy-can-help
https://news.mit.edu/2025/responding-to-generative-ai-climate-impact-0930
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/12/g-s1-9545/ai-brings-soaring-emissions-for-google-and-microsoft-a-major-contributor-to-climate-change
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/the-growing-environmental-impact-of-ai-data-centers-energy-demands
https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2024/08/15/carbon-emissions-from-ai-and-crypto-are-surging-and-tax-policy-can-help
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 27 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,607
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 35 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,609
You have this stupid idea that you can decide what’s true and then if you argue for it stubbornly enough that it will magically become true. That’s not how anything works! You can’t make something true by arguing for it when it’s just not true.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 20 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,610
@1,400,606 (C)
These random sources don't actually say what a LLM query uses. Did you even bother reading them?
These random sources don't actually say what a LLM query uses. Did you even bother reading them?
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 24 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,611
More computation requires more energy, that’s just a basic fact of how computers work, computers use electricity to do math. If you wanna do more math, you’ve gotta use more electricity. It’s not complicated!
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 3 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,612
@1,400,609 (C)
No, I believe in the objective metrics electricians and engineers use, we can use those, is that fair?
No, I believe in the objective metrics electricians and engineers use, we can use those, is that fair?
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 months ago, 29 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,613
@1,400,611 (C)
So you are going to do anything except tell me whether thats a fair comparison?
If you're right why do you keep trying to wiggle out of this?
So you are going to do anything except tell me whether thats a fair comparison?
If you're right why do you keep trying to wiggle out of this?
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 5 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,614
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 months ago, 45 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,615
@1,400,613 (B)
I don’t care about your comparison because you’re arguing for something that’s false. There’s nothing you can say that will make something false into something true.
I don’t care about your comparison because you’re arguing for something that’s false. There’s nothing you can say that will make something false into something true.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 6 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,616
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 months ago, 31 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,617
@1,400,615 (C)
You don't want to check to prove me wrong? lol
Anyone reading this knows why one side wants to compare, and one side is avoiding it lol
You don't want to check to prove me wrong? lol
Anyone reading this knows why one side wants to compare, and one side is avoiding it lol
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 47 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,618
@1,400,616 (B)
It doesn’t matter how many watts it uses, if it takes any energy at all to run an LLM on a computer it will always take more energy to make the computer run the LLM than not make the computer run the LLM.
It doesn’t matter how many watts it uses, if it takes any energy at all to run an LLM on a computer it will always take more energy to make the computer run the LLM than not make the computer run the LLM.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 52 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,619
@previous (C)
So you're saying the MacBook comparison isn't a fair way to check?
Because before you said it was obvious, and now you aren't answering the question.
So you're saying the MacBook comparison isn't a fair way to check?
Because before you said it was obvious, and now you aren't answering the question.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 19 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,620
@1,400,617 (B)
It literally has to be a negative number to make you correct. It doesn’t take a genius to understand why running software on a computer can’t use an amount of energy that’s less than zero.
It literally has to be a negative number to make you correct. It doesn’t take a genius to understand why running software on a computer can’t use an amount of energy that’s less than zero.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,621
@1,400,619 (B)
I fucking explained this to you like 10 times.
If you run an LLM on a MacBook, you’re using more energy than you would be if you were using the MacBook without the LLM, because you can’t use an LLM with your MacBook turned off. How is this complicated for you?
I fucking explained this to you like 10 times.
If you run an LLM on a MacBook, you’re using more energy than you would be if you were using the MacBook without the LLM, because you can’t use an LLM with your MacBook turned off. How is this complicated for you?
Anonymous C triple-posted this 2 months ago, 29 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,622
Any amount of energy that’s greater than zero and it’s more energy. That’s how it works.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,623
@1,400,620 (C)
@1,400,621 (C)
Wrong, because the other example had 15 minutes more of the Mac being on.
do you think the LLM outweighs the extra computer time?
@1,400,621 (C)
Wrong, because the other example had 15 minutes more of the Mac being on.
do you think the LLM outweighs the extra computer time?
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 months ago, 20 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,624
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 9 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,625
And if you think that people who use LLMs more often are going to turn their computers off sooner, that isn’t going to happen, because people use their devices for entertainment when they’re not working.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 months ago, 59 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,626
LLMs are increasing the amount of energy people use, not decreasing it. It’s really not complicated.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 32 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,627
@1,400,625 (C)
Automation could free people to do many things that use a lot resources, sure.
It still a fact that LLMs use electricity than the alternatives that came before.
Automation could free people to do many things that use a lot resources, sure.
It still a fact that LLMs use electricity than the alternatives that came before.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 35 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,628
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 22 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,629
@1,400,626 (C)
So should we waste resources by avoiding LLMs, because overall we'll be consuming less since we have less free time?
So should we waste resources by avoiding LLMs, because overall we'll be consuming less since we have less free time?
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 months ago, 24 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,630
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,631
@1,400,629 (B)
1. Having more or less free time doesn’t affect how much energy people will use because our modern lifestyle makes us use energy when where working and when we’re not working.
2. Performing computations always uses energy. If you do something you use more energy than if you do nothing.
1. Having more or less free time doesn’t affect how much energy people will use because our modern lifestyle makes us use energy when where working and when we’re not working.
2. Performing computations always uses energy. If you do something you use more energy than if you do nothing.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 months ago, 32 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,632
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,633
@1,400,631 (C)
It uses less than the process involving humans.
Comparing brain energy use is incomplete because you don't include commute, climate control, building extra spaces for working, and other peripheral expenses.
It uses less than the process involving humans.
Comparing brain energy use is incomplete because you don't include commute, climate control, building extra spaces for working, and other peripheral expenses.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 months ago, 52 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,634
@1,400,632 (C)
Your solution is just using a less energy efficient process so people waste their time and can't consume more in their free time.
Human labor is electrically inefficient.
Your solution is just using a less energy efficient process so people waste their time and can't consume more in their free time.
Human labor is electrically inefficient.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 29 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,635
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,637
@previous (C)
Yes and the climate control energy expense for silicon work is much more efficient than human work.
Yes and the climate control energy expense for silicon work is much more efficient than human work.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,638
@previous (B)
Computers generate more heat for a smaller amount of computation than a human brain does requiring them to be cooled more than a human brain does.
Computers generate more heat for a smaller amount of computation than a human brain does requiring them to be cooled more than a human brain does.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 38 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,639
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 29 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,640
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,641
@previous (C)
Yes, and a data center that spends 3x as much on climate controlling per square foot but replaces 300x the labor is 10x more energy efficient.
Yes, and a data center that spends 3x as much on climate controlling per square foot but replaces 300x the labor is 10x more energy efficient.
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,642
@previous (B)
That number 300x isn’t possible. If the planned AI data centers in Las Vegas will use enough energy to power 3 million homes and the US only has about 300 million people, how will that 300x ratio happen?
https://andthewest.stanford.edu/2025/thirsty-for-power-and-water-ai-crunching-data-centers-sprout-across-the-west/
That number 300x isn’t possible. If the planned AI data centers in Las Vegas will use enough energy to power 3 million homes and the US only has about 300 million people, how will that 300x ratio happen?
https://andthewest.stanford.edu/2025/thirsty-for-power-and-water-ai-crunching-data-centers-sprout-across-the-west/
(Edited 29 seconds later.)
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,643
Las Vegas doesn’t even have a million people.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,644
@1,400,642 (C)
Training the first model takes more than running it once it's made. It can be copied for free and running the model afterwards uses less energy than the initial training.
Account for the number of copies and training is a very small cost spread across every use.
Running the model to replace a worker is much more efficient than keeping the worker. Humans do not compare.
If you think your smarter than the investor class, do the math. There's no reasonable calculation that makes humans look more efficient.
Training the first model takes more than running it once it's made. It can be copied for free and running the model afterwards uses less energy than the initial training.
Account for the number of copies and training is a very small cost spread across every use.
Running the model to replace a worker is much more efficient than keeping the worker. Humans do not compare.
If you think your smarter than the investor class, do the math. There's no reasonable calculation that makes humans look more efficient.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 months ago, 18 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,645
You can’t just make up random numbers as part of an argument.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,646
@1,400,644 (B)
> If you think your smarter than the investor class, do the math.
Yeah, right. Like the investor class has never been wrong before.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I never get the sense that you know what you’re talking about. I’m bored of arguing with you.
> If you think your smarter than the investor class, do the math.
Yeah, right. Like the investor class has never been wrong before.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I never get the sense that you know what you’re talking about. I’m bored of arguing with you.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 24 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,647
@1,400,643 (C)
You think the data center needs to be in the same place as the people it's replacing??
You think the data center needs to be in the same place as the people it's replacing??
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 months ago, 16 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,648
Anonymous B triple-posted this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,649
@1,400,646 (C)
I'm the one who keeps trying to put a number on it, and asking if you agree with the metric (watt-hours) and you keep avoiding that.
If you thought you were right, you'd agree to compare. You know its wrong.
I'm the one who keeps trying to put a number on it, and asking if you agree with the metric (watt-hours) and you keep avoiding that.
If you thought you were right, you'd agree to compare. You know its wrong.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,651
@1,400,648 (B)
I read through this entire thread and I couldn’t find a single number that you didn’t make up, so all of them.
I read through this entire thread and I couldn’t find a single number that you didn’t make up, so all of them.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,652
Anonymous D replied with this 2 months ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,653
@previous (B)
Right now?
ChatGPT was released in 2022. In 2021, before ChatGPT, the average unemployment rate was about 5%. Today in 2025, the unemployment rate in August was 4%.
Right now?
ChatGPT was released in 2022. In 2021, before ChatGPT, the average unemployment rate was about 5%. Today in 2025, the unemployment rate in August was 4%.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,654
@previous (D)
Amazon just cited AI for laying of 14,000 employees.
Maybe we have a few years of people switching to different work, but what can a human do more efficiently?
Amazon just cited AI for laying of 14,000 employees.
Maybe we have a few years of people switching to different work, but what can a human do more efficiently?
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 38 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,660
@previous (B)
> Amazon just cited AI for laying of 14,000 employees.
It sounds better to investors than if they said the real reason.
> Amazon just cited AI for laying of 14,000 employees.
It sounds better to investors than if they said the real reason.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,661
@previous (E)
The real reason companies are laying off more this year is that humans are more expensive than bots.
The real reason companies are laying off more this year is that humans are more expensive than bots.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,662
https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/ceo-andy-jassy-latest-update-on-amazon-return-to-office-manager-team-ratio
A year ago, the CEO of Amazon said this:
"So, we’re asking each s-team organization to increase the ratio of individual contributors to managers by at least 15% by the end of Q1 2025. Having fewer managers will remove layers and flatten organizations more than they are today. If we do this work well, it will increase our teammates’ ability to move fast, clarify and invigorate their sense of ownership, drive decision-making closer to the front lines where it most impacts customers (and the business), decrease bureaucracy, and strengthen our organizations’ ability to make customers’ lives better and easier every day. We will do this thoughtfully, and our PxT team will work closely with our leaders to evolve our organizations to accomplish these goals over the next few months."
Basically, Amazon over hired during the pandemic, it made them inefficient, and now they’ve found an excuse to fire people and make it sound like they’re innovating.
A year ago, the CEO of Amazon said this:
"So, we’re asking each s-team organization to increase the ratio of individual contributors to managers by at least 15% by the end of Q1 2025. Having fewer managers will remove layers and flatten organizations more than they are today. If we do this work well, it will increase our teammates’ ability to move fast, clarify and invigorate their sense of ownership, drive decision-making closer to the front lines where it most impacts customers (and the business), decrease bureaucracy, and strengthen our organizations’ ability to make customers’ lives better and easier every day. We will do this thoughtfully, and our PxT team will work closely with our leaders to evolve our organizations to accomplish these goals over the next few months."
Basically, Amazon over hired during the pandemic, it made them inefficient, and now they’ve found an excuse to fire people and make it sound like they’re innovating.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,663
@previous (E)
Why would any company want a person writing emails and making calls when a bot could do it?
Why would any company want a person writing emails and making calls when a bot could do it?
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,664
Anonymous F double-posted this 2 months ago, 28 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,665
ChatGPT would be more agreeable by design.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 months ago, 40 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,666
Anonymous F replied with this 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,667
Anonymous F double-posted this 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,669
Btw I’m only being rude because I know you’re the obsessive anti black racist guy who’s obsessed with AI.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,670
WHICH ONE OF YOU NIGGERS SUMMONED ME
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 24 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,671
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 36 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,690
> entire threadGreen !!bO/s3MBcD joined in and replied with this 2 months ago, 11 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,400,742
Or even easier, stop believing it.
