The real question isn't whether people support bringing auto manufacturing back to America. It's already in America. Only 50% of sold cars are imported.
So the question is whether these tariffs will increase the number of cars manufactured in this country, and whether that increase is an acceptable trade-off for making the cars sold more expensive.
> Training GPT-4 used 50 GWh of energy. Like the 20,000 households point, this number looks ridiculously large if you don’t consider how many people are using ChatGPT.
> Since GPT-4 was trained, it has answered (at minimum) about 200,000,000 prompts per day for about 700 days. Dividing 50GWh by the total prompts, this gives us 0.3Wh per prompt. This means that, at most, including the cost of training raises the energy cost per prompt by 10%, from 10 Google searches to 11. Training doesn’t add much to ChatGPT’s energy cost.
> Just because you divide a number by a lot to get a small number doesn't make the original number smaller.
A bus emits more CO2 than a car. Yet it is more friendly to the environment because it transports more people.
> Those are 200M/d prompts that wouldn't happen without the training.
Sure, but at least a few millions are deriving value from it. We know this because they pay. So this value wouldn't have been generated without the investment. That's how economics work.
Those 200M/d prompts would be replaced with some other activities to solve the same problems. So if training did not happen, maybe instead of 200M/d prompts, you'd have 200M/d trips to the local library, using 200M cars to each drive three miles.
By the same token, even if you accept that AI usage will incentivize additonal model trainings, that cost is diffused across hundreds of millions of users, and is not a marginal cost, so it gets further reduced on a per-chat basis the more you use AI. I don't know what the per-user environmental cost of training a model is, but that's a pretty big factor to divide energy usage by.
I don't really follow this objection. Determining the actual energy usage of AI training+inference is something that is an objective reality. Whether you hate it or love it doesn't change these facts.
I think LLM training is objectively bad for the environment (uses countries worth of power). I am aware than my marginal usage wouldn't change things much either way, but I don't want to encourage them regardless.
Any savings with just be eaten by a tax cut, which will predominantly benefit the upper 2% of Americans, while the services cut will hurt the rest of the 98% both in the short-term and long-term.
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by the obvious presence of the malicous in a net zero game like politics or class warfare.
reply