75w is nuts actually. I measured my _desktop_ setup about 10 years ago including two monitors and idle was around 35w. It also doesn't make sense to include idle of all peripherals since you would be using them for chatgpt as well.
I’ll readily admit that I don’t know the first thing about television production, but that doesn’t seem plausible to me. Moving lots of physical objects around takes far, far, far more work than shuffling bits, and a large proportion of that can’t come from sustainable energy sources. Think about things like flying the cast to shoot on location in Lithuania, for instance. Powering and cooling servers isn’t in the same ballpark.
Not for nothing but the vast majority of people doing the kind of work that’s done on TV & Film just-so-happen to be geographically co-located for some reason.
It’s possibly worth noting that both activities require humans and even fully operational end-to-end supply chains of rare-earth minerals and semiconductor fabrication. Among many, many other things involved.
I just don’t think we can freely discount that it takes heavy industrial equipment and people and transport vehicles to move and process the raw materials to make LLM/AI tech possible, and that the … excitement has driven those activities to precipitous heights. And then of course transporting refined materials, fabricating end products, transporting those, building and deploying new machines in new data centers around the world, massively increasing global energy demand and spiking it way beyond household use in locales where these new data centers are deployed. And so on and so forth.
I suspect that we will find out someday that maybe LLMs really are more efficient, possibly even somehow “carbon negative” if you amortize it across a long enough timespan—but also that the data will show, for this window of time, that it was egregiously bad across a full spectrum of metrics.
It's this completely unfounded barrage of making shit up about energy consumption without any tether to reality that makes the whole thing with complaining about energy use seem just like a competition on who makes up the most ridiculous most hand-wringing analogy.
Enshitification, I've been using Gmail for decades and it was significantly faster and more responsive in the past. It still works fine tbh, but it did work better. Whether or not something is successful has little to do with its quality or performance these days.
There was also a time where once a website or application loaded, scrolling never lagged. Now when something scrolls smoothly it's unusual, and I appreciate it. Discord has done a really good job improving their laggy scroll, but it's still unbelievably laggy for literal text and images, and they use animation tricks to cover up some of the lag.
I've had far more Ubuntu distro upgrades break than succeed, and often without solutions online other than reinstall. Haven't had that issue with Arch since 2011. I use Ubuntu for work and Arch for personal so I've basically been using both full time for over a decade. Anecdotes be anecdotes
I agree authors should be listed, but I disagree that this is odd. Especially in a time where points from scientific consensus are considered biased political points, it's the norm.
I personally find && and || easier to read than "and" and "or" because instead of using words to separate words, it's symbols separating words. Sure syntax highlighting helps, but I don't think there's an objective choice here
