Simon Willison’s Weblog

We did the math on AI’s energy footprint. Here’s the story you haven’t heard. James O'Donnell and Casey Crownhart try to pull together a detailed account of AI energy usage for MIT Technology Review.

They quickly run into the same roadblock faced by everyone else who's tried to investigate this: the AI companies themselves remain infuriatingly opaque about their energy usage, making it impossible to produce credible, definitive numbers on any of this.

Something I find frustrating about conversations about AI energy usage is the way anything that could remotely be categorized as "AI" (a vague term at the best of the times) inevitably gets bundled together. Here's a good example from early in this piece:

In 2017, AI began to change everything. Data centers started getting built with energy-intensive hardware designed for AI, which led them to double their electricity consumption by 2023.

ChatGPT kicked off the generative AI boom in November 2022, so that six year period mostly represents growth in data centers in the pre-generative AI era.

Thanks to the lack of transparency on energy usage by the popular closed models - OpenAI, Anthropic and Gemini all refused to share useful numbers with the reporters - they turned to the Llama models to get estimates of energy usage instead. The estimated prompts like this:

• Llama 3.1 8B - 114 joules per response - run a microwave for one-tenth of a second.
• Llama 3.1 405B - 6,706 joules per response - run the microwave for eight seconds.
• A 1024 x 1024 pixels image with Stable Diffusion 3 Medium - 2,282 joules per image which I'd estimate at about two and a half seconds.

Video models use a lot more energy. Experiments with CogVideoX (presumably this one) used "700 times the energy required to generate a high-quality image" for a 5 second video.

AI companies have defended these numbers saying that generative video has a smaller footprint than the film shoots and travel that go into typical video production. That claim is hard to test and doesn’t account for the surge in video generation that might follow if AI videos become cheap to produce.

I share their skepticism here. I don't think comparing a 5 second AI generated video to a full film production is a credible comparison here.

This piece generally reinforced my mental model that the cost of (most) individual prompts by individuals is fractionally small, but that the overall costs still add up to something substantial.

The lack of detailed information around this stuff is so disappointing - especially from companies like Google who have aggressive sustainability targets.