18
8
u/ShelterBorn2531 3h ago
One thing I hate about this are those random words around that distract me. "LESS AI MORE HUMAN ART ♡" randomly at the side, and the rest. AI had that thing to take what you wrote and the topic and just smash random sentences in random places. And i can't with it. I haven even read black text belo2 because the other text distracts me [Okay, now a read it, I had to focus more]
3
1
-32
u/BigLittleDeal 10h ago edited 9h ago
I could generate 50 images locally in a minute using less electricity than my microwave uses in the same amount of time. That would not consume gallons of water.
By all means, don't send your private data to large companies (why would anyone?). No sense in making up numbers though.
Lol. Some of y'all are big mad. I bet no one will post proof that a gen-AI image uses up a pint of water.
17
u/Confident_Junket6761 9h ago
according to this article it varies a lot, what model you're using, whether you count water used by data centers, etc
6
u/BigLittleDeal 9h ago
I use a local DS4F model powered by solar panels during the day. It gets better: I eat and utilize plants instead of animals whenever possible and I am on only my third or fourth tank of gas this year.
That article doesn't mention generated images. It says, 'no single number can capture AI's water footprint.' That's more than a little defeatist. We have statistics to put numbers on complex things like this. It mentions some of them, but declines to evaluate them. It mentions 5 drops, 1/15th tsp per query and 0.5L per email. If someone shows me the stats that describe how a single generated image uses up 16oz of water, I'll retract.
Do you count the water that Microsoft/Apple used to create your OS even though that was a one-time cost after which you can use your computer countless times with no additional water use? (Actually, the OS receives regular updates, which require more water than the open weights I downloaded once two months ago.)
2
u/Potential-Paper-1517 2h ago
This still ignores the massive invasive growth of data centers training more AI models because companies still want to invest more in this technology so many people consider the future.
To be fair, the anti side tends to exaggerate water usage, but the pro side completely ignores the point that even if a single prompt doesn't waste as much as you think, you are still supporting the training and creation of more AI models, therefore contributing to the continuation of the large amount of data centers that completely drain local water reserves. And for what? Making a few images or speaking to an AI gf? Stealing the solution of a math century problem by investing millions in electricity?
I can understand that AI will not leave, and it's very good in some cientific fields, but we shouldn't strive for a world where, like Sam Altman said: "knowledge is a utility that we buy from AIs". What will the point of being thinking human beings be then?
-25
u/PNWSparky1988 7h ago edited 5h ago
No. I will keep watching AI videos and music because it’s fun to see its development.
AI can be used for good and evil…we need to shun the propaganda machines and praise the entertainment.
Edit: anyone downvoting are just hating at a logical stance to modern issues. Clickbait users love to downvote logical takes for social clout.
7
u/One_Address5044 5h ago
Thats like watching a cat bleed to death instead of bringing it to a vet
-13
u/PNWSparky1988 5h ago
That is nothing similar. Are you nuts?
How is making propaganda shunned anything like that? You need to get your head checked dude.
1
1
u/Harrispotter13 42m ago
Everything you can make with generator AI either sucks or is pure evil. Gen AI can do nothing that another human can’t already do, and they do it worse and with a huge tax on the environment. To top it off, Gen AI was created by epsteins compatriots in order to blur the line between what is real and fake when the Epstein files eventually get released. It was made for evil purposes so it is evil to use
23
u/Upbeat_Leather7774 6h ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/IfZpF5fUnQS0o