On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 01:44:05PM +0000, Jaro Reinders via ghc-devs wrote: > > On 29 Jul 2026, at 14:58, Tom Ellis via ghc-devs > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Subscriptions typically come with a number of credits that refresh > > every so often. More expensive models use more credits. Subscription > > use is not "unlimited". > > Hence the "as much as the plan allows" in my previous e-mail.
I see, however, the full context was this ... On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 12:42:45PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > > On 29 Jul 2026, at 14:24, Tom Ellis via ghc-devs > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Perhaps, or perhaps people use a better, but more expensive, model > > less? > > I expect most people to use a subscription like Claude Max or OpenAI > Pro, which encourages using as much as the plan allows. ... so I assumed you were thinking that, under a subscription, one could use as many tokens of a newer, and "uses more electricity per token", model as of an older model, which is not in general the case. If that wasn't the point you were making, could you try to explain again? I think I don't get it. In any case, I think you are making the point "as models improve individuals will use them to a greater degree, at a higher power consumption, and therefore at a higher rate of carbon emissions", and I agree. What I don't agree with is that we're in a position to determine that this is something that should be discouraged let alone how it should be discouraged. > I also just find it suspicious that these companies do not openly > disclose their energy consumption and emission statistics (which is > a hotly debated topic). This makes me think it does not paint them > in a good light. > > Thus, my opinion remains that using LLMs intensively (e.g., as > agents) seems to cause significant greenhouse gas emissions. Assuming "significantly" means something like "outsized relative to other life activities that the general population accepts as normal", am I right that the opinion you state here is based on your suspicion, rather than hard facts and numbers? The numbers shared in this thread so far don't seems to support such an opinion. I certainly won't object to anyone modifying their own behaviour based on such a suspicion. But let's retrace our steps: this subthread started with "Tom amindfv---"'s comment: > Can you spare a bit of empathy for people who are concerned about, > e.g. global warming or loss of drinking water due to LLMs (not to > mention code quality)? which I most certainly can. But maybe he meant to imply something further. If he didn't, no problem. Maybe he meant to imply "such people deserve the opportunities to voice their concerns". If he meant that, no problem. But if he meant to imply "such people should be able to influence GHC's LLM policy based on their concerns rather than hard evidence" then I do object to that. > That alone makes its use questionable, but combined with all the > other ecological and social factors it is really unacceptable to me. I have no wish to require you to accept anything, nor an objection to you sharing your point of view. Tom _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
