OpenAI will not disclose GPT-5’s energy use. It could be higher than past models
OpenAI will not disclose GPT-5’s energy use. It could be higher than past models

OpenAI will not disclose GPT-5’s energy use. It could be higher than past models

OpenAI will not disclose GPT-5’s energy use. It could be higher than past models
OpenAI will not disclose GPT-5’s energy use. It could be higher than past models
Duh. Every company like this "suddenly" starts withholding public progress reports, once their progress fucking goes downhill. Stop giving these parasites handouts
Sam Altman looks like an SNL actor impersonating Sam Altman.
"Herr derr, AI. No, seriously."
It's safe to assume that any metric they don't disclose is quite damning to them. Plus, these guys don't really care about the environmental impact, or what us tree-hugging environmentalists think. I'm assuming the only group they are scared of upsetting right now is investors. The thing is, even if you don't care about the environment, the problem with LLMs is how poorly they scale.
An important concept when evaluating how something scales is are marginal values, chiefly marginal utility and marginal expenses. Marginal utility is how much utility do you get if you get one more unit of whatever. Marginal expenses is how much it costs to get one more unit. And what the LLMs produce is the probably that a token, T, follows on prefix Q. So P(T|Q) (read: Probably of T, given Q). This is done for all known tokens, and then based on these probabilities, one token is chosen at random. This token is then appended to the prefix, and the process repeats, until the LLM produces a sequence which indicates that it's done talking.
If we now imagine the best possible LLM, then the calculated value for P(T|Q) would be the actual value. However, it's worth noting that this already displays a limitation of LLMs. Namely even if we use this ideal LLM, we're just a few bad dice rolls away from saying something dumb, which then pollutes the context. And the larger we make the LLM, the closer its results get to the actual value. A potential way to measure this precision would be by subtracting P(T|Q) from P_calc(T|Q), and counting the leading zeroes, essentially counting the number of digits we got right. Now, the thing is that each additional digit only provides a tenth of the utility to than the digit before it. While the cost for additional digits goes up exponentially.
So, exponentially decaying marginal utility meets exponentially growing marginal expenses. Which is really bad for companies that try to market LLMs.
Well I mean also that they kinda suck, I feel like I spend more time debugging AI code than I get working code.
I only use it if I’m stuck even if the AI code is wrong it often pushes me in the right direction to find the correct solution for my problem. Like pair programming but a bit shitty.
The best way to use these LLMs with coding is to never use the generated code directly and atomize your problem into smaller questions you ask to the LLM.
That's actually true. I read some research on that and your feeling is correct.
Can't be bothered to google it right now.
Do you use Claude Code? It's the only time I've had 90%+ success rate.
Do you use Claude Code? It's the only time I've had 90%+ success rate.
Do you use Claude Code? It's the only time I've had 90%+ success rate.
Sam Altman has gone into PR and hype overdrive lately. He is practically everywhere trying to distract the media from seeing the truth about LLM. GPT-5 has basically proved that we've hit a wall and the belief that LLM will just scale linearly with amount of training data is false. He knows AI bubble is bursting and he is scared.
He's also already admitted that they're out of training data. If you've wondered why a lot more websites will run some sort of verification when you connect, it's because there's a desperate scramble to get more training data.
Bingo. If you routinely use LLM's/AI you've recently seen it first hand. ALL of them have become noticeably worse over the past few months. Even if simply using it as a basic tool, it's worse. Claude for all the praise it receives has also gotten worse. I've noticed it starting to forget context or constantly contradicting itself. even Claude Code.
The release of GPT5 is proof in the pudding that a wall has been hit and the bubble is bursting. There's nothing left to train on and all the LLM's have been consuming each others waste as a result. I've talked about it on here several times already due to my work but companies are also seeing this. They're scrambling to undo the fuck up of using AI to build their stuff, None of what they used it to build scales. None of it. And you go on Linkedin and see all the techbros desperately trying to hype the mounds of shit that remain.
I don't know what's next for AI but this current generation of it is dying. It didn't work.
I was initially impressed by the 'reasoning' features of LLMs, but most recently ChatGPT gave me a response to a question in which it stated five or six possible answers sparated by "oh, but that can't be right, so it must be...", and none of them was right lmao. Thought for like 30 seconds to give me a selection of wrong answers!
Any studies about this "getting worse" or just anecdotes? I do routinely use them and I feel they are getting better (my workplace uses Google suite so I have access to gemini). Just last week it helped me debug an ipv6 ra problem that I couldn't crack, and I learned a few useful commands on the way.
MS already released, thier AI doesnt make money at all, in fact its costing too much. of course hes freaking out.
I have to test it with Copilot for work. So far, in my experience its "enhanced capabilities" mostly involve doing things I didn't ask it to do extremely quickly. For example, it massively fucked up the CSS in an experimental project when I instructed it to extract a React element into its own file.
That's literally all I wanted it to do, yet it took it upon itself to make all sorts of changes to styling for the entire application. I ended up reverting all of its changes and extracting the element myself.
Suffice to say, I will not be recommending GPT 5 going forward.
That's my problem with "AI" in general. It's seemingly impossible to "engineer" a complete piece of software when using LLMs in any capacity that isn't editing a line or two inside singular functions. Too many times I've asked GPT/Gemini to make a small change to a file and had to revert the request because it'd take it upon itself to re-engineer the architecture of my entire application.
I make it write entire functions for me, one prompt = one small feature or sometimes one or two functions which are part of a feature, or one refactoring. I make manual edits fast and prompt the next step. It easily does things for me like parsing obscure binary formats or threading new piece of state through the whole application to the levels it's needed, or doing massive refactorings. Idk why it works so good for me and so bad for other people, maybe it loves me. I only ever used 4.1 and possibly 4o in free mode in Copilot.
We moved to m365 and were encouraged to try new elements. I gave copilot an excel sheet, told it to add 5% to each percent in column B and not to go over 100%. It spat out jumbled up data all reading 6000%.
Ai assumes too fucking much. I'd used it to set up a new 3D printer with klipper to save some searching.
Half the shit it pulled down was Marlin-oriented then it had the gall to blame the config it gave me for it like I wrote it.
"motherfucker, listen here..."
It's the same tech. It would have to be bigger or chew through "reasoning" tokens to beat benchmarks. So yeah, of course it is.
When will genAI be so good, it'll solve its own energy crisis?
Most certainly it won't happen until after AI has developed a self-preservation bias. It's too bad the solution is turning off the AI.
Current genAI? Never. There's at least one breakthrough needed to build something capable of actual thinking.
intense electricity demands, and WATER for cooling.
I wonder if at this stage all the processors should simply be submerged into a giant cooling tank. It seems easier and more efficient.
Or you could build the centers in colder climate areas. Here in Finland it's common (maybe even mandatory, I'm not sure) for new datacenters to pull the heat from their systems and use that for district heating. No wasted water and at least you get something useful out of LLMs. Obviously using them as a massive electric boiler is pretty inefficient but energy for heating is needed anyways so at least we can stay warm and get 90s action series fanfic on top of that.
Microsoft has tried running datacenters in the sea, for cooling purposes. Microsoft blog
Photographer1: Sam, could you give us a goofier face?
click* click*
Photographer2: Goofier!!
click* click* click* click*
Looks like he's going to eat his microphone
He looks like someone in a cult. Wide open eyes, thousand yard stare, not mentally in the same universe as the rest of the world.
If anyone has ever wondered what it would look like if tech giants went all in on "brute force" programming, this is it. This is what it looks like.
So like, is this whole AI bubble being funded directly by the fossil fuel industry or something? Because the AI training and the instantaneous global adoption of them is using energy like it's going out of style. Which fossil fuels actually are (going out of style, and being used to power these data centers). Could there be a link? Gotta find a way to burn all the rest of the oil and gas we can get out of the ground before laws make it illegal. Makes sense, in their traditional who gives a fuck about the climate and environment sort of way, doesn't it?
I mean, AI is using like 1-2% of human energy and that's fucking wild.
My take away is we need more clean energy generation. Good things we've got countries like China leading the way in nuclear and renewables!!
All I know is that I'm getting real tired of this Matrix / Idiocracy Mash-up Movie we're living in.
Yes, China is producing a lot of solar panels (a good thing!) but the percentage of renewables is actually going down. They are adding coal faster than solar.
Do you have a source for that? Because given a chatgpt query takes a similar amount of energy to running a hair dryer for a few seconds i find it hard to believe.
its like crypto, they wanted to make money of VC funds, and thats probably running dry right now, and the investors are probably going to demand returns very soon. why do you think the massive layoffs started in 2023.
When you want to create the shiniest honeypot, you need high power consumption.
is there any picture of the guy without his hand up like that?
those are his lying/making up hand gestures. its the same thing trump does with his hands when hes lying or exaggerating, he does the wierd accordian hands.
So there are no pictures without the hands, got it.
He looks like an old Chuck E Cheese animatronic. Like someone powered him down and he returned to default rest/storage mode.
They literally don't know. "GPT-5" is several models, with a model gating in front to choose which model to use depending on how "hard" it thinks the question is. They've already been tweaking the front-end to change how it cuts over. They've definitely going to keep changing it.
How can anyone look at that face and trust anything that mad man could have to say.
Pump it Sammy, pump it harder!!
So more energy use for what the people that are into AI are calling a worse model. Is someone going to get fired for this?
But it also could be lower, right?
Not really, if it were they would be announcing their new highly efficient model.
Unlikely. 5 is just all of OpenAIs previous models in a trenchcoat.
All the people here chastising LLMs for resource wastage, I swear to god if you aren't vegan...
What a stupid take.
What is it with vegans and comparing literally everything to veganism? I was in another thread and it was compared to genocide, rape, and climate change all in the same thread. Insanity
It's not, you're just personally insulted. The livestock industry is responsible for about 15% of human caused greenhouse gas emissions. That's not negligible.
Whataboutism isn’t useful. Nobody is living the perfect life. Every improvement we can make towards a more sustainable way of living is good. Everyone needs to start somewhere and even if they never move to make more changes at least they made the one.
1 beef burger is equivalent in water consumption to 7.5million chatgpt queries.
I disagree.
There's so much proud ignorance in this world, it's great to always remind the average person how they're contributing to problems they don't even realize.
We should bring their hypocrisy to light, or else they will legitimately go through life thinking that there isn't a problem.
Dude, wtf?! You can't just go around pointing out peoples hypocrisy. Companies killing the planet is big bad.
People joining in? Dude just let us live!! It is only animals...
big /s
I mean, they're both bad.
But also, "Throw that burger in the trash I'm not eating it" and "Uninstall that plugin, I'm not querying it" have about the same impact on your gross carbon emissions.
These are supply side problems in industries that receive enormous state subsides. Hell, the single biggest improvement to our agriculture policy was when China stopped importing US pork products. So, uh... once again, thank you China for saving the planet.
Animal agriculture has significantly better utility and scaling than LLMs. So, its not hypocritical to be opposed to the latter but not the former.
Obviously it's higher. If it was any lower, they would've made a huge announcement out of it to prove they're better than the competition.
I’m thinking otherwise. I think GPT5 is a much smaller model - with some fallback to previous models if required.
Since it’s running on the exact same hardware with a mostly similar algorithm, using less energy would directly mean it’s a “less intense” model, which translates into an inferior quality in American Investor Language (AIL).
And 2025’s investors doesn’t give a flying fuck about energy efficiency.
And they don't want to disclose the energy efficiency becaaaause ... ?
They probably wouldn't really care how efficient it is, but they certainly would care that the costs are lower.
It also has a very flexible "thinking" nature, which means far far less tokens spent on most peoples responses.
I get the distinct impression that most of the focus for GPT5 was making it easier to divert their overflowing volume of queries to less expensive routes.
Unless it wasn't as low as they wanted it. It's at least cheap enough to run that they can afford to drop the pricing on the API compared to their older models.
It warms me heart to see ya'll finally tune-in to the scumbag tactics our abusers constantly employ.
It's cheaper though, so very likely it's more efficient somehow.
I believe in verifiable statements and so far,with few exceptions, I saw nothing. We are now speculating on magical numbers that we can't see, but we know that ai is demanding and we know that even small models are not free. The only accessible data come from mistral, most other ai devs are not exactly happy to share the inner workings of their tools. Even than, mistral didn't release all their data, even if they did it would only apply to mistral 7b and above, not to chatgpt.