this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
-111 points (12.2% liked)

Technology

69726 readers
3820 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
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
-111
A cheat sheet for why using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment (andymasley.substack.com)
submitted 4 days ago by anus@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I don’t think this answers the question

They're specifically showing you that in the use case you asked about the assertions must change. Your question is bad for the case that you're specifically asking about.

So no, it doesn't answer the question... But your question has a bunch more caveats that must be accounted for that you're just straight up missing.

[–] anus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No that is not how reasoned debate works, you have to articulate your argument lest you're just sloppily babbling talking points

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If the premise of your argument is fundamentally flawed, then you're not having a reasoned debate. You just a zealot.

[–] anus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Please articulate why the premise of my argument is fundamentally flawed

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I would say GitHub copilot ( that uses a gpt model ) uses more Wh than chatgpt, because it gets blasted more queries on average because the “AI” autocomplete just triggers almost every time you stop typing or on random occasions.

They did... You just refuse to acknowledge it. It's no longer a discussion of simply 3Wh when GitHub copilot is making queries every time you pause typing. It could easily equate to hundreds or even thousands of queries a day (if not rate limited). That fully changes the scope of the argument.

[–] anus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

GitHub copilot is not chatgpt

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yet again... You fundamentally have the wrong answer...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub_Copilot

GitHub Copilot is a code completion and automatic programming tool developed by GitHub and OpenAI

https://github.com/features/copilot

GitHub copilot was literally developed WITH OpenAI the creators of ChatGPT... and you can run o1, o3, o4 directly in there.

https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/using-github-copilot/ai-models/changing-the-ai-model-for-copilot-code-completion

By default, Copilot code completion uses the GPT-4o Copilot, a fine-tuned GPT-4o mini based large language model (LLM).

It defaults to 4o mini.

[–] anus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

Thank you

None of this was true of copilot for years, but I stand corrected as for the current state of affairs