Like nearly everything else, there’s a gray area. We don’t need to reject generative AI images outright, although, that’s the easiest path for lazy people–to see everything as black or white.
On Christmas, I posted an AI photorealistic image of Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman dressed in pajamas in front of a Christmas tree arguing over a Lego Nakatomi Plaza kit. It’s funny, and it doesn’t hurt anyone. I think that’s an acceptable use of generative AI images.
I do think you’re raising valid concerns regarding resource consumption + climate change. However:
youre just trying to justify it.
Learn to phrase things without disingenuously putting words into the others’ mouths dammit. This is not Reddit, behave like a decent person instead of a redditor. Nothing the other user said can be even remotely interpreted as “the energy cost is justified”, in fact they didn’t even talk about resource consumption.
It sure sounds to me like they were trying to justify it. Funny or not, if it hurts everyone so no, it’s not a justified use. Hurting anyone, let alone everyone, just for the lolz is far from acceptable.
That they didn’t talk about the resource consumption is part of the problem. Discussing whether the output of a genai system is ‘art’ or not is a fine philosophical debate, but ignores both the costs of creating the output, and the way the data to do so was sourced and processed.
If human ‘artists’ burned through the same amount of power, water, and other resources just to produce their art there would also be an outcry. If the raw materials that ‘art’ was created from were so blatently copied from others there would also be an outcry. Indeed, when a human is found to be copying another’s work and passing it off as their own, there is an outcry.
Thats in no way “putting words in their mouth”, I was pointing out what they were saying. Their point literally coalesced into “i posted a funny picture and it didn’t hurt anyone” which is factually untrue by participating in driving demand for harmful tech.
I wasnt insulting in any way, I was illustrating how their point fell apart. There is real, quantifiable harm.
No, I will not fuck off. Criticise what people say, instead of your assumptions over what they say. And if you’re unable to tell both things apart, then you’re probably better off shutting up.
And if I see muppets like you doing this shit again I’ll call it out again, again, and again. And if I were to do the same, I also expect others to call me out.
I hadn’t done any calculation, but I guess hundreds of watts over a few seconds that datacenters need to generate an image is way less energy and water than what an artist consumes during several hours while he draws the same image. Plus the electricity for lights or computer consumes.
Thanks, you are being really helpful…
I at least tried to understand the problem and explain my reasoning. And yes, I do not know much about the topic, but everyone here is complaining how I am wrong without saying why so.
So, to have an idea, let’s do the calculation.
Generating 1000 images takes on average 2.907kWh (Power Hungry Processing: Watts Driving the Cost of AI Deployment?, A. S. LUCCIONI et. al., 2024), though with very large varience (standard deviation of 3.31). So generating a single image consumes on average 2.91Wh.
I have to make a few assumptions about the artist. First of all, I will ignore the energy their body would consume, since it is pretty safe to assume, they would need the energy anyway.
Let’s assume it would take the artist one hour to produce the same image (based on nothing, just the ease of calculation; feel free to correct me).
If the artist was drawing using a PC monitor, they would consume tens of watt-hours based on the monitor (Internet article: What is PC Monitor Power Consumption? A Complete Guide, Akash, 2026). Computer with all peripherals would consume even more.
If the artist would choose iPad, using official parameters (Apple Inc.), the iPad should last up to 10 hours with its 28.93Wh battery, so the drawing would consume at least 2.893Wh. This is slightly less then AI, but charging the iPad isn’t 100% efficient. Also they would probably use a stylus for drawing, which also uses some electricity, so I would say the total power needed would be comparable (please don’t force me to calculate these efficiencies).
If the artist would draw on a paper, it would get so much complicated and probably lost in all of the assumptions about materials used, their production complexities, etc. But just for a comparison, a efficient LED light consumes from 4W (Internet article, How Much Electricity Does a LED Light Bulb Use?, 2025), so using a bulb for 44 minutes consumes more energy than generating an image.
So overall under my assumptions, generating a image using AI is at least comparable, probably more efficient then hiring an artist to do the same.
I ignored training the AI, because the more it is used, the less effect it has on the generation, and goes to 0 over time. In the same way I ignored the monitor / iPad / light bulb energy footprint during its production and transfer to the artist, since with more paintings this effect goes to 0 too.
Please do not force me to do any more calculation. I think, this was enough.
That’s a lot of fucking words that all just boil down to “I have no artistic or moral integrity and no respect or regard for the value of art or the human endeavor.”
This shows me how hateful and stubborn you are. I never said (and nobody in this comment chain) that gen-AI is better then artists. Of course I agree with how unfairly AI companies treat artists and that they should be supperted.
The only thing I said was that I think gen-AI uses less power and so should be more environmentally friendly. Then you asked for proof, so I gave you a proof. The proof was based on a lot so assumptions, so it could be wrong, but it is still better then saying “I don’t like AI, so it must be worse in every way”.
It seems insane to me that most people in here refuse to admit that there could be one single perspective in which AI is better, there is one single example where it is useful…
People forget the left sensationalizes things as much as the right does.
A lot of them show datacenter energy use for AI without comparing them to other other workloads. If you’re worried about datacenter energy use, I sure hope you don’t download any apps or steam any music/video.
Interesting how for all the comments about LLMs destroying the climate, nobody bothers responding to the one comment bringing sources and figures to the discussion.
Generative ai is just a tool for creating text and images. Not everything created using is art, just like not every piece of text written by a human or an bunch of pixels drawn in photoshop is art. What matters is intention of the author, the effort put in and whether other people perceive it as art.
It silly to call everything created by ai as art, but not because of the tool used. Most of it is not art simply because it was not created for that purpose, it is there for pure silly entertainment.
It is equally silly to vehemently hate it if the creator does not even claim it’s art.
Yeah your one image that one time didn’t necessarily hurt anyone but climate change getting kicked up a notch from the absurd amounts of carbon generated by millions of those kinds of images absolutely will literally kill and destroy lives.
Like nearly everything else, there’s a gray area. We don’t need to reject generative AI images outright, although, that’s the easiest path for lazy people–to see everything as black or white.
On Christmas, I posted an AI photorealistic image of Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman dressed in pajamas in front of a Christmas tree arguing over a Lego Nakatomi Plaza kit. It’s funny, and it doesn’t hurt anyone. I think that’s an acceptable use of generative AI images.
EDIT:
There’s no gray area about the resource cost and contribution to climate change being driven by gen AI though, youre just trying to justify it.
I do think you’re raising valid concerns regarding resource consumption + climate change. However:
Learn to phrase things without disingenuously putting words into the others’ mouths dammit. This is not Reddit, behave like a decent person instead of a redditor. Nothing the other user said can be even remotely interpreted as “the energy cost is justified”, in fact they didn’t even talk about resource consumption.
It sure sounds to me like they were trying to justify it. Funny or not, if it hurts everyone so no, it’s not a justified use. Hurting anyone, let alone everyone, just for the lolz is far from acceptable.
That they didn’t talk about the resource consumption is part of the problem. Discussing whether the output of a genai system is ‘art’ or not is a fine philosophical debate, but ignores both the costs of creating the output, and the way the data to do so was sourced and processed.
If human ‘artists’ burned through the same amount of power, water, and other resources just to produce their art there would also be an outcry. If the raw materials that ‘art’ was created from were so blatently copied from others there would also be an outcry. Indeed, when a human is found to be copying another’s work and passing it off as their own, there is an outcry.
Thats in no way “putting words in their mouth”, I was pointing out what they were saying. Their point literally coalesced into “i posted a funny picture and it didn’t hurt anyone” which is factually untrue by participating in driving demand for harmful tech.
I wasnt insulting in any way, I was illustrating how their point fell apart. There is real, quantifiable harm.
Whatever though
Yes, it is. Learn the difference between what people say and your assumptions on what they say.
That is what they were saying, though.
Then quote where they would have said what they think about the energy cost, or what they were trying to do. Oh wait they didn’t.
Seriously. You’re all being assumers. And you are being an assumer and a liar.
Oh fuck off
No, I will not fuck off. Criticise what people say, instead of your assumptions over what they say. And if you’re unable to tell both things apart, then you’re probably better off shutting up.
And if I see muppets like you doing this shit again I’ll call it out again, again, and again. And if I were to do the same, I also expect others to call me out.
I would say gen AI is much more resource friendly than hiring artists to do the same
Thing is though, artists are people.
They can do something more productive.
What would you base that supposition on?
I hadn’t done any calculation, but I guess hundreds of watts over a few seconds that datacenters need to generate an image is way less energy and water than what an artist consumes during several hours while he draws the same image. Plus the electricity for lights or computer consumes.
Oh, ok, so then you just have absolutely no fucking idea what the fuck you’re talking about.
That tracks.
Thanks, you are being really helpful… I at least tried to understand the problem and explain my reasoning. And yes, I do not know much about the topic, but everyone here is complaining how I am wrong without saying why so.
So, to have an idea, let’s do the calculation. Generating 1000 images takes on average 2.907kWh (Power Hungry Processing: Watts Driving the Cost of AI Deployment?, A. S. LUCCIONI et. al., 2024), though with very large varience (standard deviation of 3.31). So generating a single image consumes on average 2.91Wh. I have to make a few assumptions about the artist. First of all, I will ignore the energy their body would consume, since it is pretty safe to assume, they would need the energy anyway. Let’s assume it would take the artist one hour to produce the same image (based on nothing, just the ease of calculation; feel free to correct me). If the artist was drawing using a PC monitor, they would consume tens of watt-hours based on the monitor (Internet article: What is PC Monitor Power Consumption? A Complete Guide, Akash, 2026). Computer with all peripherals would consume even more. If the artist would choose iPad, using official parameters (Apple Inc.), the iPad should last up to 10 hours with its 28.93Wh battery, so the drawing would consume at least 2.893Wh. This is slightly less then AI, but charging the iPad isn’t 100% efficient. Also they would probably use a stylus for drawing, which also uses some electricity, so I would say the total power needed would be comparable (please don’t force me to calculate these efficiencies). If the artist would draw on a paper, it would get so much complicated and probably lost in all of the assumptions about materials used, their production complexities, etc. But just for a comparison, a efficient LED light consumes from 4W (Internet article, How Much Electricity Does a LED Light Bulb Use?, 2025), so using a bulb for 44 minutes consumes more energy than generating an image.
So overall under my assumptions, generating a image using AI is at least comparable, probably more efficient then hiring an artist to do the same.
I ignored training the AI, because the more it is used, the less effect it has on the generation, and goes to 0 over time. In the same way I ignored the monitor / iPad / light bulb energy footprint during its production and transfer to the artist, since with more paintings this effect goes to 0 too.
Please do not force me to do any more calculation. I think, this was enough.
That’s a lot of fucking words that all just boil down to “I have no artistic or moral integrity and no respect or regard for the value of art or the human endeavor.”
Go fuck a robot.
This shows me how hateful and stubborn you are. I never said (and nobody in this comment chain) that gen-AI is better then artists. Of course I agree with how unfairly AI companies treat artists and that they should be supperted. The only thing I said was that I think gen-AI uses less power and so should be more environmentally friendly. Then you asked for proof, so I gave you a proof. The proof was based on a lot so assumptions, so it could be wrong, but it is still better then saying “I don’t like AI, so it must be worse in every way”.
It seems insane to me that most people in here refuse to admit that there could be one single perspective in which AI is better, there is one single example where it is useful…
People forget the left sensationalizes things as much as the right does.
A lot of them show datacenter energy use for AI without comparing them to other other workloads. If you’re worried about datacenter energy use, I sure hope you don’t download any apps or steam any music/video.
https://andymasley.substack.com/p/individual-ai-use-is-not-bad-for
Interesting how for all the comments about LLMs destroying the climate, nobody bothers responding to the one comment bringing sources and figures to the discussion.
Generative ai is just a tool for creating text and images. Not everything created using is art, just like not every piece of text written by a human or an bunch of pixels drawn in photoshop is art. What matters is intention of the author, the effort put in and whether other people perceive it as art.
It silly to call everything created by ai as art, but not because of the tool used. Most of it is not art simply because it was not created for that purpose, it is there for pure silly entertainment.
It is equally silly to vehemently hate it if the creator does not even claim it’s art.
AI use is driving up energy costs and worsening pollution and global warming . Is that a good enough reason to vehemently hate it?
Yeah your one image that one time didn’t necessarily hurt anyone but climate change getting kicked up a notch from the absurd amounts of carbon generated by millions of those kinds of images absolutely will literally kill and destroy lives.