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.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I think AI power usage has an upside. No amount of hype can pay the light bill.

    AI is either going to be the most valuable tech in history, or it’s going to be a giant pile of ash that used to be VC capital.

    • themurphy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      It will not go away at this point. Too many daily users already, who uses it for study, work, chatting, looking things up.

      If not OpenAI, it will be another service.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Those users are not paying a sustainable price, they’re using chatbots because they’re kept artificially cheap to increase use rates.

        Force them to pay enough to make these bots profitable and I guarantee they’ll stop.

      • krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Those same things were said about hundreds of other technologies that no longer exist in any meaningful sense. Current usage of a technology, which in this specific case I would argue is largely frivolous anyway, is not an accurate indicator of future usage.

        • rigatti@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Can you give some examples of those technologies? I’d be interested in how many weren’t replaced with something more efficient or convenient.

          • kautau@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            8 hours ago

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

            There were certainly companies that survived, because yes, the idea of websites being interactive rather than informational was huge, but everyone jumped on that bandwagon to build useless shit.

            As an example, this is today’s ProductHunt

            And yesterday’s was AI, and the day before that it was AI, but most of them are demonstrating little value with high valuations.

            LLMs will survive, likely improve into coordinator models that request data from SLMs and connect through MCP, but the investment bubble can’t sustain

          • themurphy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 hours ago

            Technologies come and go, but often when a worldwide popular one vanishes, it’s because it got replaced with something else.

            So lets say we need LLM’s to go away. What should that be? Impossible to answer, I know, but that’s what it would take.

            We cant even get rid of Facebook and Twitter.

            BUT that being said. LLMs will be 100x more efficient at some point - like any other new technology. We are just not there yet.

            • Glog78@digitalcourage.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              11 hours ago

              @themurphy @rigatti There is one difference … LLM’s can’t be more efficient there is an inherent limitation to the technology.

              https://blog.dshr.org/2021/03/internet-archive-storage.html

              In 2021 they used 200PB and they for sure didn’t make a copy of the complete internet. Now ask yourself if all this information without loosing informations can fit into a 1TB Model ?? ( Sidenote deepseek r1 is 404GB so not even 1TB ) … local llm’s usually < 16GB …

              This technology has been and will be never able to 100% replicate the original informations.

              It has a certain use ( Machine Learning has been used much longer already ) but not what people want it to be (imho).

      • devfuuu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        12 hours ago

        And most importantly the Pandora box has been opened for deep perfect scams and illegal usage. Nobody will put it in the box again, because even if everyone agreed to make it illegal everywhere it’s already too late.

    • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      13 hours ago

      That capital was ash earlier this year. The latest $40 Billion-with-a-B financing round is just a temporary holdover until they can raise more fuel. And they already burned through Microsoft, who apparently got what they wanted and are all “see ya”.