The numbers clearly show this is a pointless distraction for the climate movement
  • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.comEnglish
    01·
    3 days ago

    I don’t think this answers the question

    They’re specifically showing you that in the use case you asked about the assertions must change. Your question is bad for the case that you’re specifically asking about.

    So no, it doesn’t answer the question… But your question has a bunch more caveats that must be accounted for that you’re just straight up missing.

    • anus@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      11·
      13 hours ago

      No that is not how reasoned debate works, you have to articulate your argument lest you’re just sloppily babbling talking points

      • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.comEnglish
        1·
        13 hours ago

        If the premise of your argument is fundamentally flawed, then you’re not having a reasoned debate. You just a zealot.

        • anus@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          11·
          13 hours ago

          Please articulate why the premise of my argument is fundamentally flawed

          • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.comEnglish
            1·
            13 hours ago

            I would say GitHub copilot ( that uses a gpt model ) uses more Wh than chatgpt, because it gets blasted more queries on average because the “AI” autocomplete just triggers almost every time you stop typing or on random occasions.

            They did… You just refuse to acknowledge it. It’s no longer a discussion of simply 3Wh when GitHub copilot is making queries every time you pause typing. It could easily equate to hundreds or even thousands of queries a day (if not rate limited). That fully changes the scope of the argument.