“I’m going to paint a shitty picture” … while using enough electricity to power a small town for two months
That’s the training process. After that you can just run it with a single GPU, in a few seconds.
Yes, thankfully the reasonable tech companies offering these services have decided to stop the training process after it was done once. The insane increase in energy consumption and hardware manufacturing for datacenter components and accelerators is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with demand for gimmicky generative AI services. Let’s also conveniently ignore the increasing inference cost of more complex models, while we’re at it.
I wonder how many artists they could just pay for what they spend on all that…
Their goal isn’t to replace a few staff members, it’s to replace all of them, everywhere, across the globe. So they consider it a worthwhile investment. As to what we’ll do when 5 people are in control of, manufacturer, and create literally everything?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Surprised to hear that my graphics card consumes enough electricity to power a small town for two months in the second it takes for it to generate an image. I’m getting incredibly good electricity rates if so.
Oh? The LLM you’re running locally just appeared out of nowhere?
Paintings are not created by LLMs
Really though, I just went through a rabbit hole of confirming a single BTC transaction uses more than 700 KWH, that’s 3 months electricity to me!
I feel like most of the articles saying this are confusing the mining power usage (a constant load) with the transaction power usage. (Essentially nothing) Each transaction fee does incentivise more mining, but it’s not a flat power cost per transaction.
If the constant load shouldn’t count against the transaction, how should it be tallied?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/881541/bitcoin-energy-consumption-transaction-comparison-visa/
If it’s essentially nothing, then why does it take so long to complete?
A single BTC transaction uses 700kWh of electricity? I’d like to see those documents too now because that doesn’t sound right at all.
Gotta love it when people spread misinformation as confidently as you do.
I wouldn’t count things I read in an online forum called ‘comic strips’ as a source of information or disinformation
Misinformation and disinformation are not synonymous.
Gotta love it when people call bullshit on objective reality as confidently as you do.
The absolute irony.
Okay, show me where my 400W gpu generating an image in 5 seconds uses up the electricity of an entire town for two months.
AI uses 5x the electricity of a google search. It is just used a metric shitton. You don’t hear about people boycotting search engines though.
The paintings are shitty, they have no soul. But go on goon away buddy you deserve those ai nudes.
Funny comic.
On a serious note though - AI is advanced means of production. All of it might not be 100% production ready today, but it’s getting there soon. Our goal must be to seize this means of production (make AI companies publicly owned with a consumer cooperative operational model). Denying its existence only serves the interests of the bourgeoisie, as it makes us unprepared when it actually starts replacing jobs en masse.
The robot isn’t preventing anyone from also painting a picture.
Whoosh.
In the not-yet-utopia that we live in, the only way for many people to be painting pictures is by making money off of it. When the robot competes in that field, it does prevent people from painting pictures.
That’s enough from you. You’ll think as we tell you. Now start hating innovation because it may steal work from “artists”.
Typical Cardassian propaganda
Are you okay, bud?
I too, want computers, AI and robots to do all the stuff that sucks.
Turns out, doing stuff that’s boring and tedious for humans, with machines, with the same level of efficiency and accuracy, is really difficult.
But spewing colored dots into a digital canvas in an order that makes it appear to resemble something that someone actually created, like a picture, piece of art, or whatever, is insanely easy for even the most idiotic of computer “AI” models.
I don’t think that the current form of “AI” is nearly as valuable as the investment in “AI” would indicate.
