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.
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2025
483 points (87.9% liked)
Technology
75191 readers
2487 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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)
My boss is also a fuckwit
Replace your boss with it.
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.
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.
You should correct their spelling of "bullshit"
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.
Well what you said is not true, but since you are so interested in this, why limit it to AI? Just quit using computers all together.
Very well thought out response. Will respond in kind.
HurrDeeeDurrr K
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Bitcoin or crypto?
The emoji usage, heading & bold text pattern makes me certain the article was written using AI.
I have started using Copilot more lately, but I’ve also switched from plastic straws to paper, so I’m good, right?
load more comments
(5 replies)
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.
Most of these figures are guesses along a spectrum of "educated" since many models, like ChatGPT, are effectively opaque to everyone and we have no idea what the current iteration architecture actually looks like. But MIT did do a very solid study not too long ago that looked at the energy cost for various queries for various architectures. Text queries for very large GPT models actually had a higher energy cost than image gen using a normal number of iterations for Stable Diffusion models actually, which is pretty crazy. Anyhow, you're looking at per-query energy usage of like 15 seconds microwaving at full power to riding a bike a few blocks. When tallied over the immense number of queries being serviced, it does add up.
That all said, I think energy consumption is a silly thing to attack AI over. Modernize, modularize, and decentralize the grids and convert to non-GHG sources and it doesn't matter--there are other concerns with AI that are far more pressing (like deskilling effects and inability to control mis- and disinformation).
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.
Article says that training o4 required equalivent amount of energy compared to powering san francisco for 3 days
load more comments
(3 replies)
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?
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)
It's using energy, we need more renewables. That's not a problem with AI. Direct your opprobrium where it belongs