this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2025
517 points (86.6% liked)

Technology

75434 readers
1646 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

archive.is link to article from allabout.ai at https://www.allaboutai.com/resources/ai-statistics/ai-environment/

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lime@feddit.nu 111 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (17 children)

idk if that's the intended takeaway from those numbers.

According to AllAboutAI analysis, global AI processing generates over 260,930 kilograms of CO₂ monthly from ChatGPT alone, equivalent to 260 transatlantic flights, with 1 billion daily queries consuming 300 MWh of electricity.

according to the faa there are on average 5500 planes in the air every day, and while i couldn't find an exact number there seem to be between 350 and 1 200 transatlantic flights every day, depending on season.

260 tons is still massive, but let's not kid ourselves. it's about equivalent to producing 12 new american-size cars.

[–] Artisian@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago

Thank you.

Idk if LLMs can tell which number is bigger. But we already knew humans can't.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 33 points 1 week ago

Just goes to show that you don't even need AI to spread misinformation! Haha

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 57 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Which is why I threw up in my mouth a little when my boss said we all need to be more bullish on AI this morning.

[–] Reygle@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago

My boss is also a fuckwit

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Same. And they basically jizz their pants when they see a practical use for AI, but 9 out of 10 times there's already a cheaper and more reliable solution they won't even entertain.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GhostlyPixel@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I’ve mentioned it before but my boss’s boss said only 86% of employees in his department use AI daily and it’s one of his annual goals to get that to 100%. He is obsessed.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 week ago

They’re salivating at the chance to reduce head count and still make money. Employees are by far the largest cost for any company. They hate paying it out when it could be for them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 49 points 1 week ago (11 children)

Your article doesn’t even claim that. Do you have any idea just how carbon intensive a flight is?

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago

I imagine people making that claim accept air travel as useful and "AI", really, all datacenters as not useful. I've had people tell me oh, air travel is more efficient per mile that road travel. But this ignores that people wouldn't drive thousands of miles if it was not as easy as booking a flight.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 49 points 1 week ago (11 children)

OP, this statement is bullshit. you can do about 5 million requests for ONE flight.

i'm gonna quote my old post:

I had the discussion regarding generated CO2 a while ago here, and with the numbers my discussion partner gave me, the calculation said that the yearly usage of ChatGPT is appr. 0.0017% of our CO2 reduction during the covid lockdowns - chatbots are not what is kiling the climate. What IS killing the climate has not changed since the green movement started: cars, planes, construction (mainly concrete production) and meat.

The exact energy costs are not published, but 3Wh / request for ChatGPT-4 is the upper limit from what we know (and thats in line with the appr. power consumption on my graphics card when running an LLM). Since Google uses it for every search, they will probably have optimized for their use case, and some sources cite 0.3Wh/request for chatbots - it depends on what model you use. The training is a one-time cost, and for ChatGPT-4 it raises the maximum cost/request to 4Wh. That's nothing. The combined worldwide energy usage of ChatGPT is equivalent to about 20k American households. This is for one of the most downloaded apps on iPhone and Android - setting this in comparison with the massive usage makes clear that saving here is not effective for anyone interested in reducing climate impact, or you have to start scolding everyone who runs their microwave 10 seconds too long.

Even compared to other online activities that use data centers ChatGPT's power usage is small change. If you use ChatGPT instead of watching Netflix you actually safe energy!

Water is about the same, although the positioning of data centers in the US sucks. The used water doesn't disappear tho - it's mostly returned to the rivers or is evaporated. The water usage in the US is 58,000,000,000,000 gallons (220 Trillion Liters) of water per year. A ChatGPT request uses between 10-25ml of water for cooling. A Hamburger uses about 600 galleons of water. 2 Trillion Liters are lost due to aging infrastructure . If you want to reduce water usage, go vegan or fix water pipes.

Read up here !

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] vala@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 1 week ago

It's so important to differentiate between commercial LLMs and AI as a general concept.

[–] rimu@piefed.social 14 points 1 week ago

The emoji usage, heading & bold text pattern makes me certain the article was written using AI.

[–] AndiHutch@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 week ago

It also pollutes the mind of ignorant people with misinformation. Not that that is anything new. But I do think objective truth is very important in a democratic society. It reminds me of that video that used to go around that showed Sinclair Broadcasting in like 20 some different 'local' broadcast news all repeating the same words verbatim. It ended with 'This is extremely dangerous to our democracy'. With AI being added to all the search engines, it is really easy to look something and unknowingly get bombarded with false info pulled out of the dregs of internet. 90% of people don't verify the answer to see if it is based in reality.

[–] blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io 11 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Makes me wonder what they are doing to reach these figures.
Because I can run many models at home and it wouldn't require me to be pouring bottles of water on my PC, nor it would show on my electricity bill.

[–] Artisian@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well, most of the carbon footprint for models is in training, which you probably don't need to do at home.

That said, even with training they are not nearly our leading cause of pollution.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (9 children)

Yeah, AI is shit and a massive waste of energy, but it's NOTHING compared to the energy usage of the airline industry.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] maccam912@programming.dev 9 points 1 week ago (7 children)

What does it mean to consume water? Like it's used to cool something and then put back in a river? Or it evaporates? It's not like it can be used in some irrecoverable way right?

[–] morto@piefed.social 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

if they take the water and don't return to the source, there will be less available water in the water body, and it can lead to scarcity. If they take it and return, but at a higher temperature, or along with pollutants, it can impact the life in the water body. If they treat the water before returning, to be closest to the original properties, there will be little impact, but it means using more energy and resources for the treatment

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I did some research and according to some AI's this is true. According to some other AI's this is false.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 6 points 1 week ago

Bitcoin or crypto?

load more comments
view more: next ›