this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
795 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

74055 readers
5741 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bunbury@feddit.nl 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Whataboutism isn’t useful. Nobody is living the perfect life. Every improvement we can make towards a more sustainable way of living is good. Everyone needs to start somewhere and even if they never move to make more changes at least they made the one.

[–] threeduck@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

1 beef burger is equivalent in water consumption to 7.5million chatgpt queries.

[–] Bunbury@feddit.nl 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

I did a quick calculation and got to around 500 queries per quarter pounder. Lot of guesstimation and rounding though, but I’m pretty sure I got close enough to know that you’re off by quite a lot.

Edit to add: I used 21.9kg CO2 per 1kg of beef and 4.32 grams per ChatGPT query for my rough estimate.

However that 4.32 number is already over a year old. Chances are it’s way outdated but everyone still keeps on quoting it. It definitely does not take into account that ChatGPT often “thinks” now, because chain of thought is likely as expensive as multiple queries by itself. Additionally the models are more advanced than a year ago, but also more costly and that CO2 amount everyone keeps quoting doesn’t even mention which model they used. If anyone can find the original source of this number I’d be very curious.

[–] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The CO2 calculation is also useful and interesting, but they did say "water consumption"

[–] Bunbury@feddit.nl 1 points 2 hours ago

Fair.

Water use comes out to about 150.000 chatGPT queries per quarter pounder. Using 10ml per prompt and 15.000l per kg of beef.

Still off by many orders of magnitude.

Also that’s just the running costs. If we go into training we’re looking at a comparison the other way around. Training GPT-3 cost Microsoft 700.000 liters of water. So that’s 466.6 quarter pounders.

[–] iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Do you have a citation handy for that?

[–] thatcrow@ttrpg.network 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If he did, would it change your views on eating meat at all?

[–] iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 16 hours ago

Probably not, since I'm a vegan.

[–] thatcrow@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I disagree.

There's so much proud ignorance in this world, it's great to always remind the average person how they're contributing to problems they don't even realize.

We should bring their hypocrisy to light, or else they will legitimately go through life thinking that there isn't a problem.

[–] Bunbury@feddit.nl 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

So when people tell you about the positive changes they’ve made you in return like to point out that they still aren’t living up to your standards? I’m not sure that’s the way to go to motivate and inspire people to do better. But you do you I guess.