I mean, I’m certain that if you consider there to be many reputable scientific publications having studies to the contrary, you should at least be able to post a single one, right?
Or at least couldn’t make it to section V. They mentioned the common claim, for instance, that GPT 3 alone took three quarters of a million gallons of water to train (roughly the footprint of 3-400) cars.
But, please, keep congratulating yourself. I was selection based on the criteria of (1) easy to read (2) multiple environmental issues listed.
I mean, I’m certain that if you consider there to be many reputable scientific publications having studies to the contrary, you should at least be able to post a single one, right?
Sure. Here is a decent one:
Environment and sustainability development: A ChatGPT perspective
Priyanka Bhaskar, Neha Seth
Applied Data Science and Smart Systems, 54-62, 2024
Point is finding it or the dozens like it take like 2 seconds on Google scholar.
Great!
Now, where in the paper did you find the primary claims about water consumption?
(There are none. You didn’t read the paper)
Well, I suppose one of us didn’t. XD
Or at least couldn’t make it to section V. They mentioned the common claim, for instance, that GPT 3 alone took three quarters of a million gallons of water to train (roughly the footprint of 3-400) cars.
But, please, keep congratulating yourself. I was selection based on the criteria of (1) easy to read (2) multiple environmental issues listed.
Once again, they make no primary claims. All they do is cite other papers.