So like, is this whole AI bubble being funded directly by the fossil fuel industry or something? Because the AI training and the instantaneous global adoption of them is using energy like it's going out of style. Which fossil fuels actually are (going out of style, and being used to power these data centers). Could there be a link? Gotta find a way to burn all the rest of the oil and gas we can get out of the ground before laws make it illegal. Makes sense, in their traditional who gives a fuck about the climate and environment sort of way, doesn't it?

I make it write entire functions for me, one prompt = one small feature or sometimes one or two functions which are part of a feature, or one refactoring. I make manual edits fast and prompt the next step. It easily does things for me like parsing obscure binary formats or threading new piece of state through the whole application to the levels it's needed, or doing massive refactorings. Idk why it works so good for me and so bad for other people, maybe it loves me. I only ever used 4.1 and possibly 4o in free mode in Copilot.

I mean, AI is using like 1-2% of human energy and that's fucking wild.

My take away is we need more clean energy generation. Good things we've got countries like China leading the way in nuclear and renewables!!

Obviously it's higher. If it was any lower, they would've made a huge announcement out of it to prove they're better than the competition.

I have to test it with Copilot for work. So far, in my experience its "enhanced capabilities" mostly involve doing things I didn't ask it to do extremely quickly. For example, it massively fucked up the CSS in an experimental project when I instructed it to extract a React element into its own file.

That's literally all I wanted it to do, yet it took it upon itself to make all sorts of changes to styling for the entire application. I ended up reverting all of its changes and extracting the element myself.

Suffice to say, I will not be recommending GPT 5 going forward.

Sounds like you forgot to instruct it to do a good job.

I’m thinking otherwise. I think GPT5 is a much smaller model - with some fallback to previous models if required.

Since it’s running on the exact same hardware with a mostly similar algorithm, using less energy would directly mean it’s a “less intense” model, which translates into an inferior quality in American Investor Language (AIL).

And 2025’s investors doesn’t give a flying fuck about energy efficiency.

I mean, AI is using like 1-2% of human energy and that's fucking wild.

My take away is we need more clean energy generation. Good things we've got countries like China leading the way in nuclear and renewables!!

It's a lot of people not understanding the kinds of things it can do vs the things it can't do.

It was like when people tried to search early Google by typing plain language queries ("What is the best restaurant in town?") and getting bad results. The search engine had limited capabilities and understanding language wasn't one of them.

If you ask a LLM to write a function to print the sum of two numbers, it can do that with a high success rate. If you ask it to create a new operating system, it will produce hilariously bad results.

I mean, AI is using like 1-2% of human energy and that's fucking wild.

My take away is we need more clean energy generation. Good things we've got countries like China leading the way in nuclear and renewables!!

I’m thinking otherwise. I think GPT5 is a much smaller model - with some fallback to previous models if required.

Since it’s running on the exact same hardware with a mostly similar algorithm, using less energy would directly mean it’s a “less intense” model, which translates into an inferior quality in American Investor Language (AIL).

And 2025’s investors doesn’t give a flying fuck about energy efficiency.

You can’t blame the user when the marketing claims it’s replacing entire humans.

Do you have a source for that? Because given a chatgpt query takes a similar amount of energy to running a hair dryer for a few seconds i find it hard to believe.

You can’t blame the user when the marketing claims it’s replacing entire humans.

They probably wouldn't really care how efficient it is, but they certainly would care that the costs are lower.

a similar amount of energy to running a hair dryer

We see a lot of those kinds of comparisons. Thing is, you run a hair dryer once per day at most. Or it's compared to a google search, often. Again, most people will do a handful of searches each day. A ChatGPT conversation can be hundreds of messages back and forth. A Claude Code session can go for hours and involve millions of tokens. An individual AI inference might be pretty tame but the quantity of them is another level.

If it was so efficient then they wouldn't be building Manhatten-sized datacenters.

Photographer1: Sam, could you give us a goofier face?

*click* *click*

Photographer2: Goofier!!

*click* *click* *click* *click*

I make it write entire functions for me, one prompt = one small feature or sometimes one or two functions which are part of a feature, or one refactoring. I make manual edits fast and prompt the next step. It easily does things for me like parsing obscure binary formats or threading new piece of state through the whole application to the levels it's needed, or doing massive refactorings. Idk why it works so good for me and so bad for other people, maybe it loves me. I only ever used 4.1 and possibly 4o in free mode in Copilot.