Comment by kennywinker
3 days ago
> But if the planet is the only consideration here you can't use any in of these models
This is simply a purity test. Just because they’re all bad, doesn’t mean there isn’t better and worse options.
3 days ago
> But if the planet is the only consideration here you can't use any in of these models
This is simply a purity test. Just because they’re all bad, doesn’t mean there isn’t better and worse options.
I don't buy that - you can't distinguish. This sounds like a convenient way for people to say "my choice is better for the planet" with basically no basis.
Feel free to elaborate.
https://sustainability.atmeta.com/blog/2024/10/14/our-approa...
Anthropic: no sustainability goals or claims
OpenAI: no sustainability goals or claims
SpaceX AI: no sustainability goals or claims
Some other non-lab inference providers:
https://regolo.ai/ Eu based, 100% renewables powered
https://greenpt.com/us/sustainability Eu based, allows you to track carbon cost of inference.
Acting like there is no difference between bad things is how you get worse things.
The fact that you believe Meta, of all companies who's gone to great lengths to lie about their core business model, speaks volumes.
This also highlights my point: the norm is that the bulk of the inference and training providers have no goals.
2 replies →