You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
1 point

Thanks for the links. I was able to find the original source for that claim, which has actually usage numbers: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/18f3ed24-4b26-4c83-a3d2-8a1be51c8cc8/Electricity2024-Analysisandforecastto2026.pdf

0.3Wh / request for Google 2.9Wh / request for ChatGPT

That does however reference the same paper as your linked articles, which I can’t find without a paywall: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2542435123003653?dgcid=author
I’d love to know how they came up with that number for ChatGPT, but it looks like I was a bit off with my estimates regardless. There’s probably some scaling efficiencies they’re taking advantage of at that size.

permalink
report
parent
reply

LinkedinLunatics

!linkedinlunatics@sh.itjust.works

Create post

A place to post ridiculous posts from linkedIn.com

(Full transparency… a mod for this sub happens to work there… but that doesn’t influence his moderation or laughter at a lot of posts.)

Community stats

  • 1.3K

    Monthly active users

  • 85

    Posts

  • 1.9K

    Comments

Community moderators