• Fisch@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Both of those things have a really small impact, to the point that it doesn’t matter. Generating one picture using AI takes like 30 seconds of your GPU running at full power. Besides, I don’t think that’s a fair comparison in the first place. Pighair brushes are not the main animal product people consume and generating something using AI models isn’t what’s using the majority of the energy but training the models is. The metric that’s actually important is what both industries as a whole are contributing to climate change, otherwise we can just keep picking examples that prove the other one wrong.

    • BoulevardBlvd@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Lololololololololol. No. Unless you have a massively expensive GPU, no. The image is not being generated by your device. It’s being generated by a mile wide server bank that churns through petrochemicals like a city all on its own. That’s the part of AI people are talking about when they reference it being bad for the environment. And if you do own a massively expensive GPU and generate AI images offline, you are not part of the conversation because your activities are an ounce in an ocean.