What if labels could help with AI too?
-
@digitaleu sorry to be ”that guy” but could you tell us why did you delete the original post and all your replies there?
Hi @unkx thank you for asking. There was a typo in the original post, and when redrafting it we ended up republishing rather than editing, which removed the previous replies. This was a genuine mistake on our part, and we apologise for the confusion.
-
What if labels could help with AI too?
️We rely on them every day:
Energy ratings Safety marks Eco-friendly sealsThey help us make informed choices.
Now, the same logic comes to AI.Today, the European Commission published the Code of Practice on marking and labelling AI-generated content: a voluntary instrument to help providers and deployers mark and label AI-generated content.
A note from our team: earlier today we redrafted this post to correct a typo and refine the messaging, and ended up republishing it rather than editing, which removed the original comments. This was a genuine mistake on our part and we apologise for the confusion. Every comment and opinion is welcome on our page, and under this post. We value the conversations with our community.
-
Hi @unkx thank you for asking. There was a typo in the original post, and when redrafting it we ended up republishing rather than editing, which removed the previous replies. This was a genuine mistake on our part, and we apologise for the confusion.
@digitaleu fair enough. Mistakes happen and there’s no shame in them.
-
What if labels could help with AI too?
️We rely on them every day:
Energy ratings Safety marks Eco-friendly sealsThey help us make informed choices.
Now, the same logic comes to AI.Today, the European Commission published the Code of Practice on marking and labelling AI-generated content: a voluntary instrument to help providers and deployers mark and label AI-generated content.
@digitaleu I like the idea of disclosure but not implementation (icons reference). Many categories are not going to be understood by content producers or consumers. Industry has already standardized on ”AI sparkles”, so introducing a text label that doesn’t translate to all languages seems like a mistake. Another cookie regulation?
-
A note from our team: earlier today we redrafted this post to correct a typo and refine the messaging, and ended up republishing it rather than editing, which removed the original comments. This was a genuine mistake on our part and we apologise for the confusion. Every comment and opinion is welcome on our page, and under this post. We value the conversations with our community.
@digitaleu How about the energy label and the AI label get combined so we can see how much energy was wasted on making something that very likely already existed to begin with?
-
What if labels could help with AI too?
️We rely on them every day:
Energy ratings Safety marks Eco-friendly sealsThey help us make informed choices.
Now, the same logic comes to AI.Today, the European Commission published the Code of Practice on marking and labelling AI-generated content: a voluntary instrument to help providers and deployers mark and label AI-generated content.
@digitaleu Of course the image in the post would be AI generated without disclosure
-
What if labels could help with AI too?
️We rely on them every day:
Energy ratings Safety marks Eco-friendly sealsThey help us make informed choices.
Now, the same logic comes to AI.Today, the European Commission published the Code of Practice on marking and labelling AI-generated content: a voluntary instrument to help providers and deployers mark and label AI-generated content.
@digitaleu
>post about the need for an "ai-generated label" (good)
>the image itself is ai slop
holy fucking shit you lot are incredibly incompetent and dragging EU's reputation even lower -
@digitaleu
>post about the need for an "ai-generated label" (good)
>the image itself is ai slop
holy fucking shit you lot are incredibly incompetent and dragging EU's reputation even lower@ko @digitaleu bruhhhhh i didnt even notice at first lmfao
-
@ko @digitaleu bruhhhhh i didnt even notice at first lmfao
@nelson @digitaleu how long until the glorious european regime blocks me on The Mastodon Network for an opposing opinion
-
@digitaleu
>post about the need for an "ai-generated label" (good)
>the image itself is ai slop
holy fucking shit you lot are incredibly incompetent and dragging EU's reputation even lower@ko @digitaleu hey technically the image has the label on it so it works ?
-
@digitaleu
>post about the need for an "ai-generated label" (good)
>the image itself is ai slop
holy fucking shit you lot are incredibly incompetent and dragging EU's reputation even lower@ko @digitaleu I mean, the label *is* on the picture
-
@ko @digitaleu There is no point, just wanted to be a little silly.
-
@digitaleu Why were the replies deleted or post adjusted?
The image in this post is generated by AI.
@dunesec @digitaleu they deleted the other post. This one is different. Probably too much to handle the comments. I guess they didn't know what the Fediverse is all about...
-
@dunesec @digitaleu they deleted the other post. This one is different. Probably too much to handle the comments. I guess they didn't know what the Fediverse is all about...
@karmalakas @digitaleu I've had a lot of experience with implementing EU symbols and guidelines. I was triggered by the wrong use of those symbols communicated by the EU. I'll give the social team some slack, because it is not their job to know every symbol and guideline, but I do wish they didn't use AI. Especially while talking about correctly labeling AI content. To be fair, those guidelines don't apply to this post, but it's sends the wrong message to me.
-
@digitaleu How about the energy label and the AI label get combined so we can see how much energy was wasted on making something that very likely already existed to begin with?
There is no way you can determine the energy usage like that. Hate AI all you want, but please don't make others have to defend why the don't hate it as much as you do. Seriously. Don't.
With that said, I would really like that there are some pretty clear consequences if someone publishes AI-generated content without labelling it as such, at least when it is used for commercial use.
-
There is no way you can determine the energy usage like that. Hate AI all you want, but please don't make others have to defend why the don't hate it as much as you do. Seriously. Don't.
With that said, I would really like that there are some pretty clear consequences if someone publishes AI-generated content without labelling it as such, at least when it is used for commercial use.
@madsenandersc @digitaleu Sure you can, what makes you think that you can't? All you need to know is what model is used and then it's easy as soon as these companies are forced to reveal how much damage they are doing. Already happened with plenty of other products.
And i honestly don't care if people hate it less than i do. There are plenty of people who defend combustion engines, that doesn't make me want to protect their fragile egos either.
-
@madsenandersc @digitaleu Sure you can, what makes you think that you can't? All you need to know is what model is used and then it's easy as soon as these companies are forced to reveal how much damage they are doing. Already happened with plenty of other products.
And i honestly don't care if people hate it less than i do. There are plenty of people who defend combustion engines, that doesn't make me want to protect their fragile egos either.
Of course you can't. To the best of my knowledge there is currently no standard for measuring energy usage for running LLM's in any way, shape or form, probably beacuse it all depends on where the data center is located, how much the hardware is loaded at the time of inference and how cooling is achieved.
Even training is not a fixed cost. Depending on who you ask, training can make up anywhere from 10% to 40% of the total energy consumption, and considering that the average energy consumption per query for training is getting lower with every query, it's impossible to calculate on a per-query basis.
See this report for a deeper explanation:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032125008329
Scroll down to this part and what comes below it:
"2.4. Discrepancies in estimations and underlying reasons
Existing estimations on LLM energy consumption, including both training and inference stages, exhibits substantial discrepancies, even for the same model." -
A note from our team: earlier today we redrafted this post to correct a typo and refine the messaging, and ended up republishing it rather than editing, which removed the original comments. This was a genuine mistake on our part and we apologise for the confusion. Every comment and opinion is welcome on our page, and under this post. We value the conversations with our community.
@digitaleu Thanks for clarifying! Regarding my post about the image which might seem a bit offensive now without the context of my previous post (deleted unfortunatly). I'm not hating on the EU, it's institutions, it's employees or this AI guideline. As a designer I just despise AI slop and I think it needs to be called out and I found it ironic being used in this image.
-
Of course you can't. To the best of my knowledge there is currently no standard for measuring energy usage for running LLM's in any way, shape or form, probably beacuse it all depends on where the data center is located, how much the hardware is loaded at the time of inference and how cooling is achieved.
Even training is not a fixed cost. Depending on who you ask, training can make up anywhere from 10% to 40% of the total energy consumption, and considering that the average energy consumption per query for training is getting lower with every query, it's impossible to calculate on a per-query basis.
See this report for a deeper explanation:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032125008329
Scroll down to this part and what comes below it:
"2.4. Discrepancies in estimations and underlying reasons
Existing estimations on LLM energy consumption, including both training and inference stages, exhibits substantial discrepancies, even for the same model."@madsenandersc @digitaleu Just because they have not done it, which is very convenient, does not mean you can not measure it. Any electronic device can be measured. It's just effort. And they will fight it every step of the way, until they are forced to do, as per usual.
LLMs are just software. if you run it on distributed system, then you have to measure accordingly. But in most case, especially for image generation, it runs on a single node, a single gpu. And of course you can measure that. And everything that can not be measure most definitively can be estimated. I really don't much care how much effort it is for them to do this, they dug this grave themselves.
What, you're saying they don't know how much energy usage their tokens translate to? What kind of bullshit business is this supposed to be where no one knows anything about anything they do? How would this ever be supposed to work?
If that really is the way these companies work it's no wonder they're all so deep in the red, i guess.
-
@madsenandersc @digitaleu Just because they have not done it, which is very convenient, does not mean you can not measure it. Any electronic device can be measured. It's just effort. And they will fight it every step of the way, until they are forced to do, as per usual.
LLMs are just software. if you run it on distributed system, then you have to measure accordingly. But in most case, especially for image generation, it runs on a single node, a single gpu. And of course you can measure that. And everything that can not be measure most definitively can be estimated. I really don't much care how much effort it is for them to do this, they dug this grave themselves.
What, you're saying they don't know how much energy usage their tokens translate to? What kind of bullshit business is this supposed to be where no one knows anything about anything they do? How would this ever be supposed to work?
If that really is the way these companies work it's no wonder they're all so deep in the red, i guess.
I literally linked to a scientific article explaining why it cannot be done in a reliable fashion. I even pointed you to the part of the article where it says so.
I did not write the article, it was written by scientists a lot smarter than me and it was peer reviewed and accepted for publication in a highly respected international publication.
If you claim to be smarter and has more knowledge than them, then all the more power to you - but until now, you have only made unsubstantiated claims with no documentation or references.
