Install Chrome, get Chrome, including the AI parts. If you don’t like it, don’t use Chrome.
You already shouldn’t be using Chrome, and if this is what moves the needle, great.
At a billion-device scale the climate costs are insane.
No.
Just flatly, no.
Local models spin your GPU like a video game. Unless you think Overwatch is a climate disaster, please learn to separate datacenter condemnation from people running their own computers a little harder.
I’d say you should read the article a little more closely, but it’s not written very well. But it brings up interesting things that have nothing to do with your local GPU usage. For example, it names an interesting point about simply delivering 4 gigabytes of data to that many people. If pushed out to ~15% of Chrome users without consent:
- That’d be 500 million people
- It would be 2 exabytes of data
- 120 GWh of energy, equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of about 36,000 average UK households
- 30,000 tonnes CO2 emitted, roughly the annual emissions of 6,500 cars
And that’s just for the initial data push. Models need ✨updates!✨
We must kill the environmental disaster that is Steam.
Youtube is history’s greatest monster.
Installing a game you want is different than hundreds of millions of people having something they didn’t ask for getting pushed on them.
Not in terms of power use.
What happened to separating personal use from condemning data centers for expending unnecessary and unwanted energy?
Does consent change how much power a server uses?
Here, yes. Two exabytes of data transfer could have been one or zero.
I don’t get the point you’re trying to make here.
Power use is not always bad. Power waste is. 4GB I’m not going to use is much worse than 6GB I will use.
The atmosphere doesn’t care whether you found joy in how you’ve impacted it. Either downloading files is bad, actually, or it’s not a big deal.


