Gregory's Server@starsider Yes, but my point is that this prompt is kind of blowing unrelated things out of proportion. An image at this sort of size wouldn't even take a second on a 4090, meaning the amount of energy consumed is going to be pretty low.
|
10 comments
@tofu I would agree with @starsider . You can run models like stable diffusion on your own hardware. Get one of those little power plugs that counts electricity usage. Connect everything. You'll see that generating your image won't take anywhere near the power consumption of a small city. That missinformation is not helpful - AI has it's problems, but you shouldn't go around and tell people that generating one image will boil the oceans  @mschfr @tofu @starsider None of this would even matter if we could just get our collective shit together as a society and make a big push for green(er) energy infrastructure. Who cares how much energy training and inference takes if it's coming from solar, wind, or nuclear power? We fight over the wrong things, imo.  @wagesj45 Yeah, but it's not easy to pull off, especially with people and governments steering from actual green options like nuclear power. @tofu @wagesj45 I wouldn't agree with your nuclear power take, but even if so: The majority of the AI data centers are going up somewhere in the USA and the USA is far from steering away from nuclear power. And even we here in Germany are at the lowest CO2/kWh since sometimes in the 19th century even after switching off all nuclear  @starsider @tofu Yeah, but even 20x the energy consumption would give it the CO2 impact of 1,5 month of one single cruise ship. And only a few big players worldwide can even think about training such a model. |
@tofu Yes, but we should keep all costs in mind. If there's a high enough demand of local models there will be also demand for online services and for training new models. Making AI art should be frowned upon, and this is just one of the reasons.