YouTube commentary by Kyle Balmer (posted 2024-12-11) rebutting claims that ChatGPT is an environmental waste. The speaker presents rough calculations attributing about 0.1–0.5 watt‑hours per ChatGPT query versus about 0.2–0.8 watt‑hours for watching a TikTok video, notes calculation caveats, and argues that using ChatGPT to obtain information is a better use of energy than passive TikTok scrolling.
Chapters
Is ChatGPT actually using up a lot of energy? So this is an accusation that's leveled at ChatGPT and other AIs all of the time, and I get lots of comments on my videos like this saying, don't use any of this. It's terrible for the environment. When you actually run the numbers, though, watching a TikTok video uses more energy than a query to ChatGPT. I got ChatGPT01 to run the maths on this and to work out the watt hours. Obviously there are a lot of factors in play here, but it boils down to around 0.1 to 0.5 watt hours per query for ChatGPT compared to 0.2 to 0.8 watt hours for watching a TikTok video. So does AI use energy? Yeah, it does. It uses a lot of energy, but so do many, many things that we do in modern life. It's just that AIs like ChatGPT are being targeted because this is something new and there's a lot of fears about them already. But what kind of drives me mad are the people who come on a place like TikTok and they complain that ChatGPT is unproductive and it's destroying the planet while they are sitting there scrolling their feed, wasting all of this energy, watching passively TikTok videos. There are 100% environmental aspects at play with artificial intelligence, but I would personally argue that using ChatGPT to run a query and find out some information about the world is a much more valuable use of that energy than watching TikTok.