It’s safe to assume that any metric they don’t disclose is quite damning to them. Plus, these guys don’t really care about the environmental impact, or what us tree-hugging environmentalists think. I’m assuming the only group they are scared of upsetting right now is investors. The thing is, even if you don’t care about the environment, the problem with LLMs is how poorly they scale.
An important concept when evaluating how something scales is are marginal values, chiefly marginal utility and marginal expenses. Marginal utility is how much utility do you get if you get one more unit of whatever. Marginal expenses is how much it costs to get one more unit. And what the LLMs produce is the probably that a token, T, follows on prefix Q. So P(T|Q) (read: Probably of T, given Q). This is done for all known tokens, and then based on these probabilities, one token is chosen at random. This token is then appended to the prefix, and the process repeats, until the LLM produces a sequence which indicates that it’s done talking.
If we now imagine the best possible LLM, then the calculated value for P(T|Q) would be the actual value. However, it’s worth noting that this already displays a limitation of LLMs. Namely even if we use this ideal LLM, we’re just a few bad dice rolls away from saying something dumb, which then pollutes the context. And the larger we make the LLM, the closer its results get to the actual value. A potential way to measure this precision would be by subtracting P(T|Q) from P_calc(T|Q), and counting the leading zeroes, essentially counting the number of digits we got right. Now, the thing is that each additional digit only provides a tenth of the utility to than the digit before it. While the cost for additional digits goes up exponentially.
So, exponentially decaying marginal utility meets exponentially growing marginal expenses. Which is really bad for companies that try to market LLMs.
Well I mean also that they kinda suck, I feel like I spend more time debugging AI code than I get working code.
I only use it if I’m stuck even if the AI code is wrong it often pushes me in the right direction to find the correct solution for my problem. Like pair programming but a bit shitty.
The best way to use these LLMs with coding is to never use the generated code directly and atomize your problem into smaller questions you ask to the LLM.
So duck programming right?
And fancier intellisense
That’s actually true. I read some research on that and your feeling is correct.
Can’t be bothered to google it right now.
Do you use Claude Code? It’s the only time I’ve had 90%+ success rate.
Do you use Claude Code? It’s the only time I’ve had 90%+ success rate.
I have, and it doesn’t at least not on the dev-ops stuff I work on.
Do you use Claude Code? It’s the only time I’ve had 90%+ success rate.
Sam Altman has gone into PR and hype overdrive lately. He is practically everywhere trying to distract the media from seeing the truth about LLM. GPT-5 has basically proved that we’ve hit a wall and the belief that LLM will just scale linearly with amount of training data is false. He knows AI bubble is bursting and he is scared.
He’s also already admitted that they’re out of training data. If you’ve wondered why a lot more websites will run some sort of verification when you connect, it’s because there’s a desperate scramble to get more training data.
Bingo. If you routinely use LLM’s/AI you’ve recently seen it first hand. ALL of them have become noticeably worse over the past few months. Even if simply using it as a basic tool, it’s worse. Claude for all the praise it receives has also gotten worse. I’ve noticed it starting to forget context or constantly contradicting itself. even Claude Code.
The release of GPT5 is proof in the pudding that a wall has been hit and the bubble is bursting. There’s nothing left to train on and all the LLM’s have been consuming each others waste as a result. I’ve talked about it on here several times already due to my work but companies are also seeing this. They’re scrambling to undo the fuck up of using AI to build their stuff, None of what they used it to build scales. None of it. And you go on Linkedin and see all the techbros desperately trying to hype the mounds of shit that remain.
I don’t know what’s next for AI but this current generation of it is dying. It didn’t work.
I was initially impressed by the ‘reasoning’ features of LLMs, but most recently ChatGPT gave me a response to a question in which it stated five or six possible answers sparated by “oh, but that can’t be right, so it must be…”, and none of them was right lmao. Thought for like 30 seconds to give me a selection of wrong answers!
Any studies about this “getting worse” or just anecdotes? I do routinely use them and I feel they are getting better (my workplace uses Google suite so I have access to gemini). Just last week it helped me debug an ipv6 ra problem that I couldn’t crack, and I learned a few useful commands on the way.
MS already released, thier AI doesnt make money at all, in fact its costing too much. of course hes freaking out.
If anyone has ever wondered what it would look like if tech giants went all in on “brute force” programming, this is it. This is what it looks like.
They literally don’t know. “GPT-5” is several models, with a model gating in front to choose which model to use depending on how “hard” it thinks the question is. They’ve already been tweaking the front-end to change how it cuts over. They’ve definitely going to keep changing it.
intense electricity demands, and WATER for cooling.
I wonder if at this stage all the processors should simply be submerged into a giant cooling tank. It seems easier and more efficient.
Or you could build the centers in colder climate areas. Here in Finland it’s common (maybe even mandatory, I’m not sure) for new datacenters to pull the heat from their systems and use that for district heating. No wasted water and at least you get something useful out of LLMs. Obviously using them as a massive electric boiler is pretty inefficient but energy for heating is needed anyways so at least we can stay warm and get 90s action series fanfic on top of that.
What happens to that heat in summer?
There’s experimental storages where heat is pumped to underground pools or sand, but as far as I know there’s heat exchangers and radiators to outside, so majority of excess heat is just wasted to outside. But absolute majority of them are closed loop systems since you need something else than plain water anyways to prevent freezing in the winter.
Microsoft has tried running datacenters in the sea, for cooling purposes. Microsoft blog
brings in another problem, so they have to use generators, or undersea cables.
Fine: make it a data-center powered by water-wheel generators. Water powered AND cooled!
When you want to create the shiniest honeypot, you need high power consumption.
is there any picture of the guy without his hand up like that?
those are his lying/making up hand gestures. its the same thing trump does with his hands when hes lying or exaggerating, he does the wierd accordian hands.
So there are no pictures without the hands, got it.
He looks like an old Chuck E Cheese animatronic. Like someone powered him down and he returned to default rest/storage mode.
Pump it Sammy, pump it harder!!
Removed by mod
How can anyone look at that face and trust anything that mad man could have to say.
“Just a few more trillion dollars bro, then itll be ready…” Like a junkie.
All the people here chastising LLMs for resource wastage, I swear to god if you aren’t vegan…
What a stupid take.
What is it with vegans and comparing literally everything to veganism? I was in another thread and it was compared to genocide, rape, and climate change all in the same thread. Insanity
probably because the animal death industry is comparable to those things
Death Industry sounds like it would be an awesome band name.
true lol
Get an original joke.
So, you admit that it was funny?
It’s good to bring out the hypocrisy among you people.
I like watching you squirm whenever a logical argument causes your cognitive dissonance to flare up.
The average person is an insecure moron, and it’s funny.
Le reddit moment
It’s not, you’re just personally insulted. The livestock industry is responsible for about 15% of human caused greenhouse gas emissions. That’s not negligible.
So, I can’t complain about any part of the remaining 85% if I’m not vegan? That’s so fucking stupid. Do you not complain about microplastics because you’re guilty of using devices with plastic in them to type your message?
Yes, I’m a piece of shit for using a phone made by a capitalist corporation and contributes to harming the planet. I don’t deny that I live in a horrible society that forces me to be a bad human just to survive.
I also don’t call people stupid for telling me my device is bad for the environment. I still eat meat, I’m not a vegan, but I understand and completely agree that it’s terrible for the environment. By recognizing it, I can be conscious of my consumption and reduce it.
I also use LLMs conservatively, I use them where they add value and I don’t use them frivolously to generate shitty AI slop.
I’m conscious of its dangers and that drives my consumption of it.
But I don’t pick and choose. I don’t eat animal products three meals a day and bitch about someone using an LLM to edit a file instead of manually working on it for five hours.
Just be consistent is the message they were communicating, not that you shouldn’t complain about 85%.
Same, I’m very aware that my selfish actions cause harm to the environment and I do try to be conservative about meat, electricity, and water usage. I don’t even own a car.
But “I swear to God, if you aren’t vegan,” which is what OP said, is hardly the same as “keep it consistent.” It feels like they’re telling us both that our efforts are pointless because we aren’t vegan. They could have said, try cutting meat from your diet to help more, or give veganism a thought. It comes off as insufferably arrogant, you know?
I’ll end my rant now, haha. Sorry.
They were trying to be funny, don’t be too literal.
I think (that’s how I interrupted it, I don’t know) the intent was to reflect the insufferably arrogant tone of most people who exclusively complain about AI as if it has no benefits and will be the sole destroyer of our society.
Were they though? If that was sarcasm I really don’t think it translated well into text at all.
You can, but you also open yourself up to criticism of your hypocrisy.
Right now, your cognitive dissonance is flaring up because you have to simultaneously criticize someone for contributing to a problem while contributing to it yourself.
I’m not even vegan, but I absolutely love watching meat-eaters squirm because it reinforces my notion that the average person is a complete idiot and should not be taken seriously.
I’m very much aware of my hypocrisy, but I do my best in other ways to help.
If people like OP are going to be dismissive of my efforts, then I guess they’re free to think that — just like I’m free to think that kind of hate keeping is stupid.
Imagining complaining about someone tipping out fresh water, while eating a burger when a single kilo of beef uses between 15,000 to 200,000 liters.
Like, until you stop doing the worst thing a single consumer can do to the planet for literally nothing but greed and pleasure (eating meat instead of healthier alternatives), you have no leg to criticize.
you’re just personally insulted.
I swear to God this attitude is why people don’t like what you’re saying. I am all for weighing the two against each other but the “I am more moral than thou” is why I left the church.
Whataboutism isn’t useful. Nobody is living the perfect life. Every improvement we can make towards a more sustainable way of living is good. Everyone needs to start somewhere and even if they never move to make more changes at least they made the one.
I disagree.
There’s so much proud ignorance in this world, it’s great to always remind the average person how they’re contributing to problems they don’t even realize.
It’s good to bring their hypocrisy to light, or else they will legitimately go through life thinking that there isn’t a problem.
So when people tell you about the positive changes they’ve made you in return like to point out that they still aren’t living up to your standards? I’m not sure that’s the way to go to motivate and inspire people to do better. But you do you I guess.
1 beef burger is equivalent in water consumption to 7.5million chatgpt queries.
I did a quick calculation and got to around 500 queries per quarter pounder. Lot of guesstimation and rounding though, but I’m pretty sure I got close enough to know that you’re off by quite a lot.
Edit to add: I used 21.9kg CO2 per 1kg of beef and 4.32 grams per ChatGPT query for my rough estimate.
However that 4.32 number is already over a year old. Chances are it’s way outdated but everyone still keeps on quoting it. It definitely does not take into account that ChatGPT often “thinks” now, because chain of thought is likely as expensive as multiple queries by itself. Additionally the models are more advanced than a year ago, but also more costly and that CO2 amount everyone keeps quoting doesn’t even mention which model they used. If anyone can find the original source of this number I’d be very curious.
The CO2 calculation is also useful and interesting, but they did say “water consumption”
Fair.
Water use comes out to about 150.000 chatGPT queries per quarter pounder. Using 10ml per prompt and 15.000l per kg of beef.
Still off by many orders of magnitude.
Also that’s just the running costs. If we go into training we’re looking at a comparison the other way around. Training GPT-3 cost 700.000 liters of water. So that’s 466.6 quarter pounders.
Do you have a citation handy for that?
If he did, would it change your views on eating meat at all?
Probably not, since I’m a vegan.
Dude, wtf?! You can’t just go around pointing out peoples hypocrisy. Companies killing the planet is big bad.
People joining in? Dude just let us live!! It is only animals…
big /s
Animal agriculture has significantly better utility and scaling than LLMs. So, its not hypocritical to be opposed to the latter but not the former.
The holocaust was well scaled too. Animal ag is responsible for 15-20% of the entire planets GHG emissions. You can live a healthier, more morally consistent life if you give up meat.
Do you know what I mean by “scaling”? Because going by your reply, you don’t.
Not really. It shows that he used scale in the appropriate manner.
I think you’re just grasping at straws by saying what sounds nice in your head instead of engaging in a legitimate argument.
I said “scaling” not “scale”. “Scaling” refers to how output and expenses of the enterprise behaves as it becomes bigger or smaller. Threeduck seems to think it means “big”. And then immediately refers the holocaust for some reason.
Though, the term is broad, hence why I asked them about how they interpret the term.
Yeah, you’re the one who’s confused about the definition.
I’d ask you to read the Wikipedia disambiguation page on scaling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaling), but you’re likely too scared to consider anything that doesn’t conform to your simplistic worldview.
I mean, they’re both bad.
But also, “Throw that burger in the trash I’m not eating it” and “Uninstall that plugin, I’m not querying it” have about the same impact on your gross carbon emissions.
These are supply side problems in industries that receive enormous state subsides. Hell, the single biggest improvement to our agriculture policy was when China stopped importing US pork products. So, uh… once again, thank you China for saving the planet.
Wait so the biggest improvement came when there was a massive decline in demand?
The Demand didn’t decline. The state imposed a strict high barrier to trade that prevented it from being fulfilled.
So you did not export that much to China or was there a big “eat more pork” campaign because else where did the demand come from afterwards?
But it also could be lower, right?
Not really, if it were they would be announcing their new highly efficient model.
Unlikely. 5 is just all of OpenAIs previous models in a trenchcoat.
Obviously it’s higher. If it was any lower, they would’ve made a huge announcement out of it to prove they’re better than the competition.
Unless it wasn’t as low as they wanted it. It’s at least cheap enough to run that they can afford to drop the pricing on the API compared to their older models.
It warms me heart to see ya’ll finally tune-in to the scumbag tactics our abusers constantly employ.
It’s cheaper though, so very likely it’s more efficient somehow.
I believe in verifiable statements and so far,with few exceptions, I saw nothing. We are now speculating on magical numbers that we can’t see, but we know that ai is demanding and we know that even small models are not free. The only accessible data come from mistral, most other ai devs are not exactly happy to share the inner workings of their tools. Even than, mistral didn’t release all their data, even if they did it would only apply to mistral 7b and above, not to chatgpt.
The only accessible data come from mistral, most other ai devs are not exactly happy to share the inner workings of their tools.
Important to point out this is really only valid towards Western AI companies. Chinese AI models have mostly been open source with open papers.
I’m thinking otherwise. I think GPT5 is a much smaller model - with some fallback to previous models if required.
Since it’s running on the exact same hardware with a mostly similar algorithm, using less energy would directly mean it’s a “less intense” model, which translates into an inferior quality in American Investor Language (AIL).
And 2025’s investors doesn’t give a flying fuck about energy efficiency.
It also has a very flexible “thinking” nature, which means far far less tokens spent on most peoples responses.
And they don’t want to disclose the energy efficiency becaaaause … ?
Because the AI industry is a bubble that exists to sell more GPUs and drive fossil fuel demand
Because, uhhh, whoa what’s that? ducks behind the podium
They probably wouldn’t really care how efficient it is, but they certainly would care that the costs are lower.
I’m almost sure they’re keeping that for the Earnings call.
Do they do earnings calls? They’re not public.
probably VC money, the investors going to want some answers.
I get the distinct impression that most of the focus for GPT5 was making it easier to divert their overflowing volume of queries to less expensive routes.
Duh. Every company like this “suddenly” starts withholding public progress reports, once their progress fucking goes downhill. Stop giving these parasites handouts
