Are we killing the planet for that skin?

https://www.theverge.com/24066646/ai-electricity-energy-watts-generative-consumption

Luccioni and her colleagues ran tests on 88 different models spanning a range of use cases, from answering questions to identifying objects and generating images. In each case, they ran the task 1,000 times and estimated the energy cost. Most tasks they tested use a small amount of energy, like 0.002 kWh to classify written samples and 0.047 kWh to generate text. If we use our hour of Netflix streaming as a comparison, these are equivalent to the energy consumed watching nine seconds or 3.5 minutes, respectively. (Remember: that’s the cost to perform each task 1,000 times.) The figures were notably larger for image-generation models, which used on average 2.907 kWh per 1,000 inferences. As the paper notes, the average smartphone uses 0.012 kWh to charge — so generating one image using AI can use almost as much energy as charging your smartphone.

griff wrote:

Are we killing the planet for that skin?

https://www.theverge.com/24066646/ai-electricity-energy-watts-generative-consumption

Snip.. As the paper notes, the average smartphone uses 0.012 kWh to charge — so generating one image using AI can use almost as much energy as charging your smartphone.

Stop charging the phone and cut down on driver and pedestrian deaths, especially if they are cremated or buried in a vault so not recycled into the earth.
I wonder how much crap that's totally useless is in cloud storage?
 

Lovely, but over the years I've seem many photographs as good or better that anything at that AI link. 
I've even taken a couple... quite by accident as my photography skills are pretty amateur.
I will admit many of the best I've seen were transparencies or printed from said same.
OK, bottom line is I can't know for sure if many of the pictures I see are AI or not unless there is obvious problems like the Valentine Dogs.