LinkedinLunatics

3563 readers

5 users here now

A place to post ridiculous posts from linkedIn.com

(Full transparency.. a mod for this sub happens to work there.. but that doesn't influence his moderation or laughter at a lot of posts.)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

csm10495@sh.itjust.works

648

is this employee in the room with us right now? (sopuli.xyz)

submitted 4 months ago by crmsnbleyd@sopuli.xyz to c/linkedinlunatics@sh.itjust.works

113 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/surazghimire_linkedin-joke-influencer-activity-7209045694303633408-y-I4

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

https://old.lemmy.world/comment/10803727

E: I've cleaned up the comment for saucing ease in case you looked at it right away but I'll quote it here for ease.

Yep, I'm familiar with it. More from previous comments since these disingenuous memes get pedaled here regularly. People love to spout stats about AI in data centers that aren't just used for AI without having any sense of how much CO2 is produced from really really common stuff lol. Let alone it being contingent on being run in non-renewable powered areas yet 40% of the USA's grid is clean.

1 AI search = 10 google searches. More sauce.

How about watching TikTok? 30 minutes of video daily = 28kg of carbon a year. Calculators here: 1, 2, 3.

How about the recent 'Oh no 1/5 a city's water!' The city use 770,000 gallons a day... So it uses 154,000 gallons of water for an entire piece of critical infrastructure that keeps the internet running. For the entire data center lol. And that's for the city Carrol, Iowa with a whopping population of 10,000 people in 5 square miles lol.

A real common citation is how much carbon it takes to initially train these too. 500 tons of carbon dioxide... That's only 33/334,000,000 Americans worth of CO2 for the year lol.

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 1 points 4 months ago

Thanks for the links. I was able to find the original source for that claim, which has actually usage numbers: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/18f3ed24-4b26-4c83-a3d2-8a1be51c8cc8/Electricity2024-Analysisandforecastto2026.pdf

0.3Wh / request for Google 2.9Wh / request for ChatGPT

That does however reference the same paper as your linked articles, which I can't find without a paywall: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2542435123003653?dgcid=author
I'd love to know how they came up with that number for ChatGPT, but it looks like I was a bit off with my estimates regardless. There's probably some scaling efficiencies they're taking advantage of at that size.