Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised people are relying on it for medical information considering how inaccurate it’s proven to be. For example, there have been a few recent situations where it was used in the legal field and was found to fabricate cases and laws.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wish people better understood how this stuff works. It's not smart: it's basically predictive text, but with an incredibly high environmental cost. If you are using it to find lesson plan ideas or whatever, why not just Google search - why add the ChatGPT layer?
Google is more hassle. With AI you can continue a conversation the next day or whenever if needed. You don’t have to rehash your search. Plus it is there to read again another day if you need it (if you create an account). It also aggregates info for you so you don’t need to click on multiple search hits. But it’s far from perfect so you still need to use your head.
Google has been decimated by SEO and ads. I find it almost unusable.
I use ChatGPT and Gemini and compare.
Environmental cost, sure but so many people use far more for crypto, or posting endlessly on Insta and TikTok:
Comparison:
• ChatGPT: A single interaction might use 1 to 10 Wh.
• TikTok: A dozen 2-minute videos could collectively consume between 240 to 480 Wh.
In summary, the energy required to post a dozen TikTok videos is significantly higher than that for a single ChatGPT query, potentially by a factor of 50 or more. The energy consumption for TikTok primarily comes from the process of uploading and hosting the videos, which is more resource-intensive compared to generating a single text response from an AI model.
(Granted ChatGPT could be lying here out of its own self-interest)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wish people better understood how this stuff works. It's not smart: it's basically predictive text, but with an incredibly high environmental cost. If you are using it to find lesson plan ideas or whatever, why not just Google search - why add the ChatGPT layer?
Google is more hassle. With AI you can continue a conversation the next day or whenever if needed. You don’t have to rehash your search. Plus it is there to read again another day if you need it (if you create an account). It also aggregates info for you so you don’t need to click on multiple search hits. But it’s far from perfect so you still need to use your head.
Google has been decimated by SEO and ads. I find it almost unusable.
I use ChatGPT and Gemini and compare.
Environmental cost, sure but so many people use far more for crypto, or posting endlessly on Insta and TikTok:
Comparison:
• ChatGPT: A single interaction might use 1 to 10 Wh.
• TikTok: A dozen 2-minute videos could collectively consume between 240 to 480 Wh.
In summary, the energy required to post a dozen TikTok videos is significantly higher than that for a single ChatGPT query, potentially by a factor of 50 or more. The energy consumption for TikTok primarily comes from the process of uploading and hosting the videos, which is more resource-intensive compared to generating a single text response from an AI model.
(Granted ChatGPT could be lying here out of its own self-interest)
Google uses AI interface as its first answer.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wish people better understood how this stuff works. It's not smart: it's basically predictive text, but with an incredibly high environmental cost. If you are using it to find lesson plan ideas or whatever, why not just Google search - why add the ChatGPT layer?
Google is more hassle. With AI you can continue a conversation the next day or whenever if needed. You don’t have to rehash your search. Plus it is there to read again another day if you need it (if you create an account). It also aggregates info for you so you don’t need to click on multiple search hits. But it’s far from perfect so you still need to use your head.
Google has been decimated by SEO and ads. I find it almost unusable.
I use ChatGPT and Gemini and compare.
Environmental cost, sure but so many people use far more for crypto, or posting endlessly on Insta and TikTok:
Comparison:
• ChatGPT: A single interaction might use 1 to 10 Wh.
• TikTok: A dozen 2-minute videos could collectively consume between 240 to 480 Wh.
In summary, the energy required to post a dozen TikTok videos is significantly higher than that for a single ChatGPT query, potentially by a factor of 50 or more. The energy consumption for TikTok primarily comes from the process of uploading and hosting the videos, which is more resource-intensive compared to generating a single text response from an AI model.
(Granted ChatGPT could be lying here out of its own self-interest)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wish people better understood how this stuff works. It's not smart: it's basically predictive text, but with an incredibly high environmental cost. If you are using it to find lesson plan ideas or whatever, why not just Google search - why add the ChatGPT layer?
Google is more hassle. With AI you can continue a conversation the next day or whenever if needed. You don’t have to rehash your search. Plus it is there to read again another day if you need it (if you create an account). It also aggregates info for you so you don’t need to click on multiple search hits. But it’s far from perfect so you still need to use your head.
Anonymous wrote:I wish people better understood how this stuff works. It's not smart: it's basically predictive text, but with an incredibly high environmental cost. If you are using it to find lesson plan ideas or whatever, why not just Google search - why add the ChatGPT layer?