Hacker News Reader

I think he's saying that eating beef in particular is a tremendous amount of CO2 emissions (comparable to driving). Eating other meats has a much lower impact. Not eating meat is even much lower.

So one question: No one probably benefits much from beef (vs, say, chicken). So if I were to recast the parent: If you're concerned about energy usage from LLMs, you'll have a larger impact if you stop eating beef (with little impact to your health).

I think the claim is more about people's consistency in their choice. "If you care so much, start to [insert any environmental friendly acivity] and then we can discuss about LLM environmental impact".

Which is stupid.

It's as stupid as comparing it with drinking water usage, right?

Of course it doesn’t exactly equal it. Meat takes thousands of times more.