The University of Rhode Island’s AI lab estimates that GPT-5 averages just over 18 Wh per query, so putting all of ChatGPT’s reported 2.5 billion requests a day through the model could see energy usage as high as 45 GWh.

A daily energy use of 45 GWh is enormous. A typical modern nuclear power plant produces between 1 and 1.6 GW of electricity per reactor per hour, so data centers running OpenAI’s GPT-5 at 18 Wh per query could require the power equivalent of two to three nuclear power reactors, an amount that could be enough to power a small country.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Or it might not. It would be a huge short term risk to do so.

    As FaceDeer said, that we truly don’t know.

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      13 hours ago

      OpenAI are not profitable today, and don’t estimate they’ll be profitable until 2029, so it’s almost guaranteed that they’re selling their services at a loss. Of course, that’s impossible to verify - since they’re a private company, they don’t have to release financial statements.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        There’s a difference between selling at a loss, and having a loss.

        OpenAI let’s people use models for free with very little limits other than reducing the model quality over time, and they have very generous limits before they limit you at that.

        That all costs money and is a loss for them.

        If they get someone who’s willing to pay, and they charge $20/m and on average, they net $5 profit per customer, they aren’t selling it at a loss, they just need more customers. It’s possible that a paid customer uses it even more though and it actually does incur a loss per paid customer and they’re doing that to try and gain users while they figure out how to lower their costs, but that seems less likely.

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        13 hours ago

        That’s not what I’m saying. They’ve all but outright said they’re unprofitable.

        But revenue is increasing. Now, if it stops increasing like they’ve “leveled out”, that is a problem.

        Hence it’s a stretch to assume they would decrease costs for a more expensive model since that would basically pop their bubble well before 2029.

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          Revenue is increasing, but according to their own estimates, it has to increase 10x in order for them to become profitable.