I recently encountered a report that made the claim that AI generated text is actually far more CO2 efficient than an American writing the same text.
Which ignored the training of the model, the fact that far more text is generated than a person would ever write in their lifetime, that the quality of the text is useless spam, that a persons CO2 footprint doesn't exist for the sole purpose of, and doesn't entirely encompass them doing their job (ya know, people want to live a fucking life outside of writing) and so on and so forth.
The only kind of intent I can see behind such a claim is to make the argument that we should replace all writers with AI. And even then you wouldn't get rid of the person's CO2 footprint, so the next step after that would be to kill the person too.
Here it is: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
Techbros were pointing to this like it's the word of god.
I recently encountered a report that made the claim that AI generated text is actually far more CO2 efficient than an American writing the same text.
Which ignored the training of the model, the fact that far more text is generated than a person would ever write in their lifetime, that the quality of the text is useless spam, that a persons CO2 footprint doesn't exist for the sole purpose of, and doesn't entirely encompass them doing their job (ya know, people want to live a fucking life outside of writing) and so on and so forth.
The only kind of intent I can see behind such a claim is to make the argument that we should replace all writers with AI. And even then you wouldn't get rid of the person's CO2 footprint, so the next step after that would be to kill the person too.
Here it is: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
Techbros were pointing to this like it's the word of god.
"Trust the science"
The Science:
u said a report and i was thinking college freshman, not NATURE