I believe in verifiable statements and so far,with few exceptions, I saw nothing. We are now speculating on magical numbers that we can't see, but we know that ai is demanding and we know that even small models are not free. The only accessible data come from mistral, most other ai devs are not exactly happy to share the inner workings of their tools.
Even than, mistral didn't release all their data, even if they did it would only apply to mistral 7b and above, not to chatgpt.

Well I mean also that they kinda suck, I feel like I spend more time debugging AI code than I get working code.

Well I mean also that they kinda suck, I feel like I spend more time debugging AI code than I get working code.

It's not, you're just personally insulted. The livestock industry is responsible for about 15% of human caused greenhouse gas emissions. That's not negligible.

Do you use Claude Code? It's the only time I've had 90%+ success rate.

If he did, would it change your views on eating meat at all?

It's good to bring out the hypocrisy among you people.

I like watching you squirm whenever a logical argument causes your cognitive dissonance to flare up.

The average person is an insecure moron, and it's funny.

Death Industry sounds like it would be an awesome band name.

I did a quick calculation and got to around 500 queries per quarter pounder. Lot of guesstimation and rounding though, but I’m pretty sure I got close enough to know that you’re off by quite a lot.

Edit to add:
I used 21.9kg CO2 per 1kg of beef and 4.32 grams per ChatGPT query for my rough estimate.

However that 4.32 number is already over a year old. Chances are it’s way outdated but everyone still keeps on quoting it. It definitely does not take into account that ChatGPT often “thinks” now, because chain of thought is likely as expensive as multiple queries by itself. Additionally the models are more advanced than a year ago, but also more costly and that CO2 amount everyone keeps quoting doesn’t even mention which model they used. If anyone can find the original source of this number I’d be very curious.

Same, I'm very aware that my selfish actions cause harm to the environment and I do try to be conservative about meat, electricity, and water usage. I don't even own a car.

But "I swear to God, if you aren't vegan," which is what OP said, is hardly the same as "keep it consistent." It feels like they're telling us both that our efforts are pointless because we aren't vegan. They could have said, try cutting meat from your diet to help more, or give veganism a thought. It comes off as insufferably arrogant, you know?

I'll end my rant now, haha. Sorry.

The Demand didn't decline. The state imposed a strict high barrier to trade that prevented it from being fulfilled.

The CO2 calculation is also useful and interesting, but they did say "water consumption"

They were trying to be funny, don't be too literal.

I think (that's how I interrupted it, I don't know) the intent was to reflect the insufferably arrogant tone of most people who exclusively complain about AI as if it has no benefits and will be the sole destroyer of our society.