one assessment suggests that ChatGPT, the chatbot created by OpenAI in San Francisco, California, is already consuming the energy of 33,000 homes. It’s estimated that a search driven by generative AI uses four to five times the energy of a conventional web search. Within years, large AI systems are likely to need as much energy as entire nations.
You literally asked for that. What a wonderful catch-22 you set up; if nobody responded with the evidence you demanded you could claim people were lying about you, and if they provided it you can claim they’re launching personal attacks.
Rereading that previous thread, I see you were quick to accuse me of issuing personal attacks there too. Seems to be a common theme.
Anyway. Is there anything more to discuss here about the actual topic of this thread, the energy usage of ChatGPT?
I literally asked for you to lie in order to make me look bad by claiming I said people could burn a car if they were pissed off?
I’m pretty sure I didn’t say either thing.
And yes I did accuse you of making personal attacks then. Because you were making them then and you’re making them now.
MagicShel said:
And you responded:
So I demonstrated.
There’s no need to screenshot one specific quote and present it with no context, I provided a link to the whole thread.
The only thing you demonstrated was that you lied. And you provided the link to prove it.
The first statement was, as I have demonstrated, a lie. The second statement was, as I said, dishonest, because it was a group decision, not a unilateral one, and had nothing to do with hating AI in general.
So no, you have not shown that to be in any way true. All you have shown is that you are a highly dishonest person who makes scurrilous accusations in order to harm someone’s reputation.
Badly.
That’s not the comment I was referring to. Here’s a direct link, where you said:
Yep, still lying.
I didn’t say-
I said:
But it is pretty amusing that you pasted a quote yourself that proves what you said was a lie. Maybe you should have cut off that second part to make the lie more convincing.
The car didn’t drive into them. It stopped.
But re-arguing a week-old thread in a different unrelated thread is likely even less welcome. Anyone who’s really interested can go read it.
What the car did is irrelevant. This is a lie:
I’ve shown that it is a lie. Even the text you pasted proved that it was a lie. The first part of the post above was just blatantly false, the second part was dishonest. That’s a simple truth.
Sorry, you’re not going to get me to forget about the fact that you lied by trying to change the subject.