"#ChatGPT needs to 'drink' [the equivalent of] a 500 ml bottle of #water for a simple conversation of roughly 20-50 questions and answers," the paper notes. "While a 500ml bottle of water might not seem too much, the total combined #water footprint for inference is still extremely large, considering ChatGPT’s billions of users."
@karabaic yes, the ones close to rivers.And the water is returned to the river and is not consumed...
@extrn Missed this error on your part. Read the paper; this is explained in detail. You’re not helping your case or personal credibility.
@karabaic indeed, sorry - skimmed through the artcle and did not see the link to the paper, so I just assumed typical journalism. In any case, before reading the article I'm skeptical.
@karabaic note how they talk in 500ml bottles. This is to invoke the image of precious drinking water :) I think it is transparent they try to create something here...
@extrn Yep, it is a rhetorical technique, to provide the reader the feeling for the use of a precious resource. You would have a stronger case on your side if the water they used wasn’t potable.
@extrn This is explained in the paper, on page 4. Further comments that show you haven’t read it will force me to conclude you’re not engaging in good faith, and result in a block.
Read the paper.
@extrn it’s not a closed cycle for many power plants.