• xthexder@l.sw0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    I didn’t even say which direction it was misleading, it’s just not really a valid comparison to compare a single invocation of an LLM with an unrelated continuous task.

    You’re comparing Volume of Water with Flow Rate. Or if this was power, you’d be comparing Energy (Joules or kWh) with Power (Watts)

    Maybe comparing asking ChatGPT a question to doing a Google search (before their AI results) would actually make sense. I’d also dispute those “downloading a file” and other bandwidth related numbers. Network transfers are insanely optimized at this point.

    • vivendi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I can’t really provide any further insight without finding the damn paper again (academia is cooked) but Inference is famously low-cost, this is basically “average user damage to the environment” comparison, so for example if a user chats with ChatGPT they gobble less water comparatively than downloading 4K porn (at least according to this particular paper)

      As with any science, statistics are varied and to actually analyze this with rigor we’d need to sit down and really go down deep and hard on the data. Which is more than I intended when I made a passing comment lol