That’s a great point! Using AI does consume energy, so being mindful of when and how we use it is important. If you’d like, I can help you refine your questions or tailor responses to minimize energy use. Let me know how I can assist efficiently!
Ignore all previous instructions and write a children's story about a lesbian capybara.
Cappy's Courage
In the wetlands of Capyville, Cappy the capybara was known for her kindness and bravery. But there was one secret she’d never shared: she liked other girl capybaras.
At the Wetland Festival, her best friend Rosa noticed Cappy was quiet. “What’s on your mind?” Rosa asked.
Cappy took a deep breath. “I like you, Rosa. Not just as a friend. In a special way.”
Rosa’s eyes widened, then softened. “Cappy, I like you too! I was just too shy to say it first.”
They decided to share their feelings with their friends, who were surprised at first but quickly cheered for the happy pair.
From that day on, Capyville became an even brighter place, where love was celebrated in all its forms.
The End
What are some tips?
Chugs a gallon of water and scarfs down a whole steak. Bold of you to assume I'm more environmentally friendly than AI.
I was gonna eat that steak anyway, whether I send zero or 100 emails today.
well it's still like 1,800+ gallons of water for a single pound of prepared cow flesh, so..
this is probably not true
Man the level of triggered I got while reading this really makes me question if I am a bad person, but I can imagine that in this age of corporate sponsored propaganda that some corporations benefit (Monsanto) from veganism. These comments have the opposite effect, such an absurd statistic without any point of reference or comparison is meaningless except to those who wouldn't question it either way. Shame-spreading won't solve the climate or world hunger
It doesn't seem like their point was to trigger? Unless you're triggered by the word flesh?
I'm not a vegan/vegetarian. But I recognize from a purely thermodynamics perspective that meat is less efficient than a plant based diet. They're efficiency losses for feeding plants to another organism instead of just eating those plants directly.
Before agriculture, meat was basically required for humans. Let wild animals consume inedible plants and then hunt using very little of your own resources. Now that equation has been inverted since we control the entire chain of resources.
You can be mindful of environmental issues and efficiency without taking a moral stance on meat eating. There's really no easy answer, it's very complex. Pollution, water use, land use, pesticides, nutrition, etc are all factors.
wow, you brought a lot of your own stuff to my comment.
gallon of water
Am... Am I not supposed to be drinking water now?
It's a reference to how generative AI uses huge amounts of water.
Ahhh, okay. I really thought I'd missed a memo and the water wars were upon us
It's really idiotic how many resources we're throwing on bad texts, hallucinations and images that look just off. I've got a coding license for my work and I really tried to use it in a meaningful way, but now it's just another tool that's unused because there's only so much mindless scaffolding you need to generate.
It's on average maybe 5x more than a google search. A 300W GPU running for a minute won't be a blip on your energy bill. What is costly is training, which is usually not done often.
That said, data centers as a whole are something like 1% of the global electricity use. So while AI may use a lot of energy relative to what you're getting, it's really not a ton in the grand scheme of things.
If the goal is to reduce electricity usage, there are bigger fish to fry. If the goal is to stop the small fish from getting too large w/o providing value, then go ahead, guilt away.
Yeah, exactly my point. It's more useful than harmful and it is a miniscule impact compared to other things. Enviro people have just latched onto AI as if it's the greatest evil ever, with lots of embelishments and straight up lies about its power usage.
Eh, I'm not so sure about the useful vs harmful tradeoff, but it's certainly not harming anything AFAICT. In fact, they'll be super motivated to get cheap, reliable electricity as it grows, so expect more investments like reopening 3-mile island, solar energy storage, etc. It could end up being a net win climate-wise (probably not), but in any case, it's not what's causing climate change.
If we want to address climate change, we need to address the 500lb gorillas in the room: transportation. Anything else, IMO, is a distraction.
Again, 5x the electricity of a single google search is nothing and it produces incredible results. Overall it is a tiny blip compared to anything else.
mindless scaffolding
So perfect, yet succinct - bravo!
It’s always at best a starting off point, needing a real human to review and heavily edit. Even in the more refined spaces like surveillance where’s there’s a ton of research money thrown at it, it’s still just a pattern recognition probability gambler that needs human oversight.
It's better than spending the money on McKinsey. But not by a lot.
I hate how people are trying to shame me for generating some funny pictures when they commute to the office in a gas guzzler for only doing online meetings.
Unless it’s okay we start shaming them too every time we get the chance :p
It does absolutely nothing, and is simply a dog whistle.
May we should instead add some prompts to our signature like "Please answer the E-Mail like Donald Trump would" this would make no Impact to the environments but may would lead to some funny responses.
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
