This is evidently not the whole story with regards to AI energy usage - training costs, data center buildout costs and the ongoing fierce competition between the providers all add up to a very significant carbon footprint for the AI industry as a whole.
AI should still produce a lot more carbon but AI is suppose to help humanity advance faster and make humanity more productive. Movies and shows are mostly entertainment. So the extra carbon footprint should be worth it.
Do you have at least the order of magnitude for this? Does it also consume as much water as data centers? Has the entertainment industry ever needed to attract US$7T within 5 years to do what it does?
> “AI is supposed to help humanity advance faster and make humanity more productive.”
Is it? How? Will it really advance life or it is just a probability? Advance in what way, and why do you think being faster is better, and if better, better at what? If it is a probability, what exact number is it? What if it doesn’t happen in the way you think it will?
Do you have at least the order of magnitude for this? Does it also consume as much water as data centers? Has the entertainment industry ever needed to attract US$7T within 5 years to do what it does?
Is it? How? Will it really advance life or it is just a probability? Advance in what way, and why do you think being faster is better, and if better, better at what? If it is a probability, what exact number is it? What if it doesn’t happen in the way you think it will?