6 ms·

Are you asking if the 10 seconds it takes AI to generate an image is more costly to the environment than a commissioned graphics artist using a laptop for 5-6 h

Are you asking if the 10 seconds it takes AI to generate an image is more costly to the environment than a commissioned graphics artist using a laptop for 5-6 hours, or a painter who uses physical media sourced from all over the world?

camillomiller 5mo ago
Wow, do you hold a degree in false dichotomies?
dilDDoS 5mo ago
Cheaper/faster tech increases overall consumption though. Without the friction of commissioning a graphics artist to design something, a user can generate thousands of images (and iterate on those images multiple times to achieve what they want), resulting in way more images overall. I'm not really well versed on the environmental cost, more just (neutrally) pointing out that comparing a single 10s image to a 5-6 hour commission ignores the fact that the majority of these images probably would never have existed in the first place without AI.
- runarberg 5mo ago
  Also, ignoring training when talking about the environmental costs is bad faith. Without training this image would not exist, and if nobody generating images like these, the training would not happen. So we should really ask, the 10 seconds it took for inference, plus the weeks or months of high intensity compute it took to train the model.
  - ToValueFunfetti 5mo ago
    You'd want to compare against the fraction of training attributable to the image
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
bayindirh 5mo ago
In short, yes. A modern laptop is running almost fanless, like a 486 from the days of yore. A single H200 pumps out 700W continuously in a data center, and you run thousands of them. Also, don't forget the training and fine tuning runs required for the models. Mass transportation / global logistics can be very efficient and cheap. Before the pandemic, it was cheaper to import fresh tomatoes from half-world away rather than growing them locally in some cases. A single container of painting supplies is nothing in the grand scheme of things, esp. when compared with what data centers are consuming and emitting.
- cpill 5mo ago
  these are unfair comparisons. it's not just a single laptop running all day it's all the graphic designer laptops that get replaced. it's not a single container of painting supplies it's all off them, (which are toxic by the way). so if power were plentiful and environmental you'd be onboard with it?
  - bayindirh 5mo ago
    > these are unfair comparisons. it's not just a single laptop running all day it's all the graphic designer laptops that get replaced. it's not a single container of painting supplies it's all off them, (which are toxic by the way). Please see my other comment about energy consumption and connect the dots with how open loop DLC systems are harmful to fresh water supplies (which is another comment of mine). > so if power were plentiful and environmental you'd be onboard with it? This is a pretty loaded way to ask this. Let me put this straight. I'm not against AI. I'm against how this thing is built. Namely: - Use of copyrighted and copylefted materials to train models and hiding under "fair use" to exploit people. - Moreover, belittling of people who create things with their blood sweat and tears and poorly imitating their art just for kicks or quick bucks. - Playing fast and loose with environment and energy consumption without trying to make things efficiently and sustainably to reduce initial costs and time to market. - Gaslighting the users and general community about how these things are built, and how it's a theater, again to make people use this and offload their thinking, atrophying their skills and making them dependent on these. I work in HPC. I support AI workloads and projects, but the projects we tackle have real benefits, like ecosystem monitoring, long term climate science, water level warning and prediction systems, etc. which have real tangible benefits for the future of the humanity. Moreover, there are other projects trying to minimize environmental impact of computation which we're part of. So it's pretty nuanced, and the AI iceberg goes well below OpenAI/Anthropic/Mistral trio.

camillomiller 5mo ago

Wow, do you hold a degree in false dichotomies?

dilDDoS 5mo ago

Cheaper/faster tech increases overall consumption though. Without the friction of commissioning a graphics artist to design something, a user can generate thousands of images (and iterate on those images multiple times to achieve what they want), resulting in way more images overall. I'm not really well versed on the environmental cost, more just (neutrally) pointing out that comparing a single 10s image to a 5-6 hour commission ignores the fact that the majority of these images probably would never have existed in the first place without AI.

runarberg 5mo ago
Also, ignoring training when talking about the environmental costs is bad faith. Without training this image would not exist, and if nobody generating images like these, the training would not happen. So we should really ask, the 10 seconds it took for inference, plus the weeks or months of high intensity compute it took to train the model.
- ToValueFunfetti 5mo ago
  You'd want to compare against the fraction of training attributable to the image
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]

bayindirh 5mo ago

In short, yes. A modern laptop is running almost fanless, like a 486 from the days of yore. A single H200 pumps out 700W continuously in a data center, and you run thousands of them. Also, don't forget the training and fine tuning runs required for the models. Mass transportation / global logistics can be very efficient and cheap. Before the pandemic, it was cheaper to import fresh tomatoes from half-world away rather than growing them locally in some cases. A single container of painting supplies is nothing in the grand scheme of things, esp. when compared with what data centers are consuming and emitting.

cpill 5mo ago
these are unfair comparisons. it's not just a single laptop running all day it's all the graphic designer laptops that get replaced. it's not a single container of painting supplies it's all off them, (which are toxic by the way). so if power were plentiful and environmental you'd be onboard with it?
- bayindirh 5mo ago
  > these are unfair comparisons. it's not just a single laptop running all day it's all the graphic designer laptops that get replaced. it's not a single container of painting supplies it's all off them, (which are toxic by the way). Please see my other comment about energy consumption and connect the dots with how open loop DLC systems are harmful to fresh water supplies (which is another comment of mine). > so if power were plentiful and environmental you'd be onboard with it? This is a pretty loaded way to ask this. Let me put this straight. I'm not against AI. I'm against how this thing is built. Namely: - Use of copyrighted and copylefted materials to train models and hiding under "fair use" to exploit people. - Moreover, belittling of people who create things with their blood sweat and tears and poorly imitating their art just for kicks or quick bucks. - Playing fast and loose with environment and energy consumption without trying to make things efficiently and sustainably to reduce initial costs and time to market. - Gaslighting the users and general community about how these things are built, and how it's a theater, again to make people use this and offload their thinking, atrophying their skills and making them dependent on these. I work in HPC. I support AI workloads and projects, but the projects we tackle have real benefits, like ecosystem monitoring, long term climate science, water level warning and prediction systems, etc. which have real tangible benefits for the future of the humanity. Moreover, there are other projects trying to minimize environmental impact of computation which we're part of. So it's pretty nuanced, and the AI iceberg goes well below OpenAI/Anthropic/Mistral trio.