No it does not. When I run an offline model on my machine it uses my 4 year old GPU and runs for ~50 seconds. You people are completely ignorant about how this all works, yet are the most vocal about it.
90% of people do not use offline models, especially for everyone doing ai code and video. The offline models are undeniably worse and slower. These ai companies didn’t just magic billions out of thin air, most people are using the massive data farms. Also people are generally not playing 14 hours a day maxed out gaming, where for ai they might use it all day during work.
I am late to this argument, but data center imagegen is typically batched so that many images are made in parallel. And (from the providers that aren’t idiots), the models likely use more sparsity or “tricks” to reduce compute.
Task energy per image is waaay less than a desktop GPU. We probably burnt more energy in this thread than in an image, or a few.
And this is getting exponentially more efficient with time, in spite of what morons like Sam Altman preach.
There’s about a billion reasons image slop is awful, but the “energy use” one is way overblown.
The existence of offline models highlights a nuance that some people deny even exists though, causing people to talk around one another. I wish it would be more widely acknowledged, as it would make some conversations around AI easier.
So I did some more research, and evidently if you’re going to use AI at all, you’re probably increasing your energy usage by using it offline if you use it often (unless you are using renewables), since the data centers generally have cards specifically designed for AI. I think it might just be a case of everyone needs to use it significantly less, it’s like if 4k gaming was something the average joe was doing. If everyone was doing that 10 hours a day, we would have a big problem.
It’s kinda like saying it’s not immoral to go for a pleasure drive, but if you’re driving around 10 hours a day that’s probably not good and you should minimize it as much as you can.
Does the physical location of the hardware really matter?
Single individuals driving do not contribute much to pollution, but collectively they do.
Shifting the hardware from a data center to your house is great for privacy and I wholeheartedly agree with that, but unless demand goes down the same or perhaps even more energy will be consumed. It’ll just be consumed elsewhere.
Using AI to make shitposts probably isn’t the best use of energy but then again almost nothing we do is because nobody wants to live in a society with no hobbies.
You’re on a computer. You probably game too. You’re burning resources where ever you go. We need tools to fight fascists. I say use the tools we have. Without it, they have an advantage being able to create content and analysis. Also forests are fine. Don’t be dramatic. I’m not convinced that bots didn’t drive a lot of AI hate so that the left would hobble itself
Ai uses more resources than that and the tech bros are very responsible for the current fascism and I’m not going to use ai slop tools that are quickly using up the rest of our drinking water.
The Forrest’s are not fine. They burn down every fucking year.
Okay? I really don’t give a shit to use the fascist tech bro slop machines. I don’t want it to run offline on my computer. I don’t want it to run at all. I think we should break its legs so it can’t even walk anymore.
It matters when your argument was that it uses water and more resources than playing games, when the reality is it does neither of them when used on your personal device.
Yup. Can’t win ‘em all.
How can you tell it’s AI? Maybe it’s just photo editing? Who can say
Because AI does nonsensical things that would require extra effort for a human to do, in this case the lady has a soccer purse and a soccer ball
/me zooms in
Oh, yeah. I guess the prompt was soccer mom.
deleted by creator
Why not just use it and work with it
Why not just burn down a forest for a bit of a giggle?
Kind of a shit analogy, since forest fires actually help forests 🤷♂️
Not when they also burn down homes because they are out of control due to climate change 🤷🏻🤷♀️🤷🏻♂️
No, I’m pretty sure burning down homes is also helpful to the forest. Trees don’t live in houses.
Fuck them kids
It throttles my gpu less than playing a game does. ‘Spose we should ban gaming too?
Ai uses large servers and data farms. It doesn’t have to throttle your machine because it isn’t using your machine.
No it does not. When I run an offline model on my machine it uses my 4 year old GPU and runs for ~50 seconds. You people are completely ignorant about how this all works, yet are the most vocal about it.
90% of people do not use offline models, especially for everyone doing ai code and video. The offline models are undeniably worse and slower. These ai companies didn’t just magic billions out of thin air, most people are using the massive data farms. Also people are generally not playing 14 hours a day maxed out gaming, where for ai they might use it all day during work.
I am late to this argument, but data center imagegen is typically batched so that many images are made in parallel. And (from the providers that aren’t idiots), the models likely use more sparsity or “tricks” to reduce compute.
Task energy per image is waaay less than a desktop GPU. We probably burnt more energy in this thread than in an image, or a few.
And this is getting exponentially more efficient with time, in spite of what morons like Sam Altman preach.
There’s about a billion reasons image slop is awful, but the “energy use” one is way overblown.
The existence of offline models highlights a nuance that some people deny even exists though, causing people to talk around one another. I wish it would be more widely acknowledged, as it would make some conversations around AI easier.
So I did some more research, and evidently if you’re going to use AI at all, you’re probably increasing your energy usage by using it offline if you use it often (unless you are using renewables), since the data centers generally have cards specifically designed for AI. I think it might just be a case of everyone needs to use it significantly less, it’s like if 4k gaming was something the average joe was doing. If everyone was doing that 10 hours a day, we would have a big problem.
It’s kinda like saying it’s not immoral to go for a pleasure drive, but if you’re driving around 10 hours a day that’s probably not good and you should minimize it as much as you can.
Does the physical location of the hardware really matter?
Single individuals driving do not contribute much to pollution, but collectively they do.
Shifting the hardware from a data center to your house is great for privacy and I wholeheartedly agree with that, but unless demand goes down the same or perhaps even more energy will be consumed. It’ll just be consumed elsewhere.
Using AI to make shitposts probably isn’t the best use of energy but then again almost nothing we do is because nobody wants to live in a society with no hobbies.
You’re on a computer. You probably game too. You’re burning resources where ever you go. We need tools to fight fascists. I say use the tools we have. Without it, they have an advantage being able to create content and analysis. Also forests are fine. Don’t be dramatic. I’m not convinced that bots didn’t drive a lot of AI hate so that the left would hobble itself
Ai uses more resources than that and the tech bros are very responsible for the current fascism and I’m not going to use ai slop tools that are quickly using up the rest of our drinking water.
The Forrest’s are not fine. They burn down every fucking year.
You do know you can run it offline on your own PC hardware, right?
Okay? I really don’t give a shit to use the fascist tech bro slop machines. I don’t want it to run offline on my computer. I don’t want it to run at all. I think we should break its legs so it can’t even walk anymore.
Fuuuck ai.
It matters when your argument was that it uses water and more resources than playing games, when the reality is it does neither of them when used on your personal device.
You’re complaining about datacentres not LLMs.
LLMs also suck.
Good to see a healthy attitude to it developing.
Still way too many zealots screeching. But it’s getting there.