this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
465 points (97.9% liked)

memes

19953 readers
3938 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nandeEbisu@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

As far as energy goes, its a matter of degree. LLMs are mainly bad emissions-wise because of the volume of calls being made. If you're running it on your GPU, you could have been playing a game or something similarly emitting.

The issue is more image generation models which are 1000 times worse https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/12/01/1084189/making-an-image-with-generative-ai-uses-as-much-energy-as-charging-your-phone/

Original Paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.16863

A moderately sized text-to-text model that you would run locally is about 10g of carbon for 1000 inferences which is driving a car about 1/40th of a mile. Even assuming your model is running in some kind of agentic loop, maybe 5 inferences / actual response (though it could be dozens depending on the architecture) that gets to you, that's 10gcarbon / 200 messages to your model which is at least 2-3 sessions on the heavy end I would think. You could use it for a year and its equivalent to driving 3 miles if you do that every day.

Image generation, however, is 1000-1500x that so just chatting with your GF isn't that bad. Generating images is where it really adds up.

I wouldn't trust these numbers exactly, they're more ball-park. There's optimizations that they don't include and there's a million other variables that could make it more expensive. I doubt it would be more than 10-20 miles in a car / year for really heavy usage though.